The discussion concerning a longer lifespan for human beings triggers mixed feelings from different groups of people. Firstly, quite a considerable number of scientists and researchers believe in the possibility of extending human lifespan. Philosophers have also developed an interest in the discussion and their insightful contribution cannot be ignored. Pijnenburg & Leget (2007) challenge the human lifespan extension researchers by portraying the entire idea as “morally unacceptable” and unnecessary. They raise three major concerns to support their stand.
Justice is a concrete ethical obstacle that cannot be overlooked. The concept arises as a result of what Pijnerburg & Leget (2007), refer to as “unequal death”. The inequality phenomenon with respect to death is visibly undeniable and cuts across the globe. The wide gap in life expectancy that manifests between first world nations and third world countries and between the rich and the poor cannot be ignored. The life expectancy of people from developed nations ranges at 70-80 years while that of the most disadvantaged countries stands at 40 (Pijnerburg & Leget, 2007). However, there are some likely objections to this view including the concept of utilitarianism and the fact that existence of obvious disparities is a concern for political and social institutions and does not concern bioethicists whatsoever. I agree with the proposition because it justifies the fact that life expansion cannot be of benefit to all.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second ethical obstacle is the community. Life extension arguments are based on liberalism. However, human beings exist within the liberalistic and communitarian anthropological views (Pijnerburg & Leget, 2007). Liberalism is the perception that human beings interact with others under the motivation of self-interest. Communalism portrays the human being as social beings with meaningful relationships. The age extension discussion does not engage the communal aspect of life critically. I support the view because how we affect the lives of other matters.
Pijnenburg & Leget (2007), present meaning of life as another ethical obstacle to biological age extension. Human beings should shift their focus to quality rather than the length of life. Life becomes more fulfilling if personal ego is dismissed and much of the energy is dedicated to serving others and God. The authors are correct because life is more meaningful when you make a difference for others and yourself.
I agree with the arguments presented because they all lean towards using the current lifespan range to change the world for the better. Extending lifespan is unlikely to present a fairer world. The existing life expectancy disparities are accelerated by problems such as poverty, economic injustice and poor politics. If such economic and social issues were addressed with the level of urgency required, in fact, the life expectancy of the affected countries would improve significantly.
According to Locke & Hall (2005), proponents of lifespan extension refrain addressing life expectancy issues. Otherwise, this would provide a clearer understanding of whether the world of would fully benefit from maximum lifespan. Currently, the largest population of the world is poor. This raises the question whether they would afford to ‘buy’ extra years on earth.
Lifespan extension means that individuals get more years for themselves as well as for the community. We live in a world where we affect each other willingly or unwillingly. Choosing lifespan extension is a personal choice that affects the lives of the people around you. Focusing on the quality of life for one’s self and the community from a young age leads to a fulfilling life no matter the span.
A meaningful life leads to fulfilment and happiness. Lifespan does not equal to fulfilment and happiness. Biomedical lifespan extension encourages people to focus more on self in a world where people need each other. Locke & Hall (2005) emphasize on quality life by insisting that lifespan extension can possibly make the life of the elderly and handicapped more difficult. Most people prefer quality over longevity.
References
Lucke, J. C., & Hall, W. (2005). Who wants to live forever? EMBO reports , 6 (2), 98-102.
Pijnenburg, M. A., & Leget, C. (2007). Who wants to live forever? Three arguments against extending the human lifespan. Journal of medical ethics , 33 (10), 585-587.
