March 28, 2017 - 00:42
After learning about the “diversity” paradigm (disability is just another form of bodily/ mentally features) and the “elimination” paradigm (Peter Singer), I found it particular interesting when reading about Michael Bérubé’s (and also Tom Shakespeare’s) thought. “To me, disability is not neutral, it is a decrement in health. Not a tragedy, granted, but not just another difference like sex or ethnicity.” This seems to be in the middle of the “diversity” paradigm and the “elimination” paradigm and most likely to be accepted by the general public. This middle ground really reminded us that though most disability was definitely not the most difficult forms of life, it still “diminish flourishing”.
In the discussion of genetic editing in this week’s reading, there were a lot of struggles between what features can (or should) be changed and what could (or should) not. The center of this debate was a lot of time weighed more on the “sufferings” of the parents, the person who get to make the critical decisions, instead of the kids themselves. This debate kind of reminded me of the conversation about “system vs. individual” in Good Kings Bad Kings. One of the reasons that people might want to “get rid of” the disabled bodies and minds is that the disabled kids’ flourishing got diminished significantly and the families suffered. But there are still disabled kids who didn’t diminish the flourishing of their lives much, and these are the kids that have the access to sufficient social and medical support. So in this situation, if a good system is in place, the argument of getting rid of the disabled bodies and minds would no longer be tenable.
And here is some of my thought in this debate. I agree that we cannot hold up genetic editing forever and this technology can indeed benefit a lot of people. But I also think it will be incredibly hard to set up a line or criteria for the traits that can or cannot be genetically altered. The line is constantly changing in different places, different time, for different people and we really don’t know much about what traits are doing us good and what are not. Actually, I don’t believe that there can be line. The blurriness of the “line” is where the humanity lies.