Now that the four arguments have been explained, it is possible to find a connection between all of them. The main connection is that the genetic technology is not the problem; the problem is the underlying reductionist philosophy. Kass argues that a result of technological advances is that we have accepted a view of a man that is no more than a material being controlled by his or her genes and environment (i.e. a vision of a man without free will or the possibility of ideals) (138). Therefore, the connection between all of the arguments is that they are coming from a religious perspective. For example, recall that part of Kass’s first argument was that it would be difficult justifying saying no to new genetic technologies when there promise …show more content…
Once everyone understands and respects the different philosophies we should listen to more of Kass’s advice, we must not allow the use of technology to grow with self-increasing limits. Instead, we need to use moral, intellectual, spiritual, and political rule to be certain that we are making the right decisions. Specifically it is essential that we focus on human freedom and dignity. For example, it worries me that a small number of scientists could increase their rule over a huge number of individuals by using genetic technology, resulting in decreased human freedom. A solution to this problem would be everyone using moral, intellectual, and spiritual rules in a political setting to make sure that a large number of voices are heard. It also troubles me that scientists could play God by deciding who is worthy of living and by designing the unborn. Regardless of deficiencies everyone should be viewed as an equal, especially because human diversification is an asset to all of us. I also agree with Kass that our suffering will only be shifted as health care continues to improve. The reason is that we have to focus on our spirituality in addition to our health. In this paper I have explained Kass’s arguments related to four areas of concern regarding genetic