It is estimated that every night approximately 795 million people in the world go to bed hungry. Although it is clear how severe this issue is, there are not many viable solutions today. Many believe that genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are the solutions to these problems. Proponents believe that GMOs can lead to the production of more efficient crop yields, and thus have the power to save individuals dying from malnutrition. However, many disagree, asserting that GMOs can lead to a lack of biodiversity and promote economic inequality. Although there are compelling arguments for both views, genetically engineered organisms should be banned only to the extent where they will cause more harm than good.
In the article by Klaus M. Leisinger, “Yes: Stop Blocking Progress” the …show more content…
This can be evaluated with respect to the moral theory of Utilitarianism, which calls us to produce the most happiness and the least unhappiness that we can. If overall the impact of a genetically engineered organism will produce more happiness and less unhappiness, then the use of that GMO should be allowed. For example, golden rice is ordinary rice that is genetically engineered to produce β-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. However, unethical research was conducted when it was initially being tested. Although the research was carried out in an unethical fashion, the information found had the potential of saving thousands of lives. Therefore, the use of golden rice should be morally permissible, even though organizations like the ‘greenpeace’ believe that it would open the door to the use of more GMOs. My view falls in between the argument of forbidding the use of GMOs and using GMOs whenever possible. Individuals should weight the happiness and unhappiness of the effects of using a GMO on a case by case basis to decide if it is
In the article by Klaus M. Leisinger, “Yes: Stop Blocking Progress” the …show more content…
This can be evaluated with respect to the moral theory of Utilitarianism, which calls us to produce the most happiness and the least unhappiness that we can. If overall the impact of a genetically engineered organism will produce more happiness and less unhappiness, then the use of that GMO should be allowed. For example, golden rice is ordinary rice that is genetically engineered to produce β-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. However, unethical research was conducted when it was initially being tested. Although the research was carried out in an unethical fashion, the information found had the potential of saving thousands of lives. Therefore, the use of golden rice should be morally permissible, even though organizations like the ‘greenpeace’ believe that it would open the door to the use of more GMOs. My view falls in between the argument of forbidding the use of GMOs and using GMOs whenever possible. Individuals should weight the happiness and unhappiness of the effects of using a GMO on a case by case basis to decide if it is