mary smith Article Review 4/18/13 ” Presuppositions to Moral Judgments on Human Genetic Manipulation” The article by James Walter, ” Presuppositions to Moral Judgments on Human Genetic Manipulation” had a few valid points. In this article his purpose was to ” demonstrate that any informed moral judgement about the genetic manipulation of the human genome is always shaped within a context. The two contexts he debates about are theological and anthropological presuppositions. The theological presupposition is concerned with who God is, divine providence, and how God acts in the world and in history. The anthropological presuppositions are based off of how we view ourselves in the image of God, various models of material life, and what we believe is normatively human. In Walter’s approach of justifying the theological presupposition he gives good examples. God is the creator of the material universe and humanity and our destinies are created through what He provides for us. Since he created us, he obtains specific rights over us. During human genetic manipulation people are taking into their hands some of God’s rights. It is stated that God has the right to determine the future and biological laws, we as God’s creation shouldn’t manipulate what He has and/or will create; this is acting in a sinful manner. Human arrogance is the act of believing and acting as if we are better and all knowing than anything else, when in reality it is ignorance because we aren’t aware that God is all knowing and has the power that some desire. The other argument is that God created the universe but hasn’t placed fixed laws in the creation. Walter says that God created us (part of history) and the future is so opened to different possibilities that we are able to shape and change the future making humans their own creator in a sense. If we are our own creators, God works in the background, influencing us in the ” depths of our freedom” in hopes that the human race does what is morally correct. I believe what Walter is arguing in his article. We don’t have the right nor the authority as humans to take away God’s given right as the creator. We don’t have the right to change whatGod himself is trying to create. It is morally wrong, with the advances that were made in science, scientists are able to completely change the whole genetic make up of an embryo. Callahan has an argument that human life and nature is created by God and therefore sacred. Walter’s argument in the anthropological presupposition we approach situations that we believe is distinctively human. The advances in medicine, technology, and biology all are said to affect our moral assessment. I believe this to be true, as science rapidly expands and makes many advances through time, it will only change what is acceptable and what isn’t. The moral value of some things will decrease significantly because of science. It is possible that we look at all material, even humanity, as ” plastic” to be used and we are able change, shape, and mold anything, according to Daniele Callahan. Culture is said to be created by humans stressing freedom, spirit, responsibility, and creativity making what we do okay because we are in all made in the image of God, therefore Human Genetic Manippulation is okay. Although we are made in the image of God I don’t believe we have any right to toy with what he has in store for what is to come. This article made many valid points and opened many eyes to the other side of things. Morally, we don’t have the right to change anything that God made. We may hold the power and the knowledge but that doesn’t change the what is right and what is wrong. What we spoke about today in class, all cultures knowing not to steal, cheat, covet neighbors good not just Christianity can tie into this argument. Just because something is human instinct and what we learn and see is what allows us to base our opinions, we all should know at the end of the day what is moral and immoral, and just because we learned something doesn’t make is right.
This work, titled "Mary smith" was written and willingly shared by a fellow student. This sample can be utilized as a research and reference resource to aid in the writing of your own work. Any use of the work that does not include an appropriate citation is banned.
If you are the owner of this work and don’t want it to be published on AssignBuster, request its removal.
Request RemovalReferences
AssignBuster. (2022) 'Mary smith'. 19 January.
Reference
AssignBuster. (2022, January 19). Mary smith. Retrieved from https://assignbuster.com/mary-smith/
References
AssignBuster. 2022. "Mary smith." January 19, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/mary-smith/.
1. AssignBuster. "Mary smith." January 19, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/mary-smith/.
Bibliography
AssignBuster. "Mary smith." January 19, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/mary-smith/.
Work Cited
"Mary smith." AssignBuster, 19 Jan. 2022, assignbuster.com/mary-smith/.
Please, let us know if you have any ideas on improving Mary smith, or our service. We will be happy to hear what you think: [email protected]