Situational ethics judge something as being good or bad depending on the circumstances or contexts within which it is occurring. This philosophy does not specify exclusive conditions that guarantee the right or the wrong. In regard to the principles of situational ethics, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is neither right nor wrong in its organic and purest form. It depends on the circumstances and the context in which it is taking place. In the case of Steven and Marisol, circumstances make it absolutely necessary to use IVF to get the baby. This is because every good action is judged based on its outcomes or consequences. This is also in line with the principles of utilitarianism which judges an action as ethical or unethical based on the consequences it brings about.
From the details of Huntington’s disease, the disease is not linked to any particular gender. Designer babies and sex selection depend on various factors such as the extent to which a particular sex of a child is predisposed to a certain syndrome. In this case, IVF is only good as far as it can reduce the possibilities of giving birth to a baby with or predisposed to Huntington’s disease. Therefore, accepting the good of IVF does not necessarily imply accepting designer babies or the gender of the baby to have. IVF and designer babies are independent, though related.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is not wrong to try using bioengineering to prevent a genetic disease. It is a wise investment of money to the development and use of these technologies. This is because bioengineering increases life expectancy and predictability by preventing genetic diseases that are likely to cause death. These technologies are meant for good and not for bad. Therefore, it is not selfish to try to control the genes of the child, based on the principles of utilitarianism and situational ethics.
