Foreword Welcome, Dear Reader, to the Autumn edition of The Thinker. Whilst the study of philosophy can be traced back to the 6th century BC, conceptual ideologies, theological doctrines and epistemology are constantly developing narratives as we navigate the 21st century, so much so that philosophy in the modern day and in the future must evolve and develop alongside it. It is for this reason that modern philosophy is likely to focus on the advancements of science, technology and arti cial intelligence that challenges ancient pervasive ideas of creationism and liberty. Thus we bring you the modern day applications of these timeless philosophical concepts in this edition titled The Morality of Science which promises to examine concepts such as nuclear technology, euthanasia, aesthetics and bioweaponry. Indeed, contemporary technology is more powerful than ever, (in fact the cover of this magazine was created through arti cial intelligence itself), and we hope that by delving into this edition, you not only gain a
richer perspective on the transforming world around you but that it also helps you cultivate the ability to engage in thoughtful, open-minded discussions with your peers and wider society that can help shape a more informed and compassionate population. Warm Wishes, Antara Martins, Aurore Lebrun, Maya Erkman and Nina Freudenheim The Thinker Team
Is art using artificial intelligence in place of humans ethical? Is art made using artificial intelligence in place of humans ethical? by Zeynep Tarman Recently, art made by artificial intelligence has been a focal point across the internet, from tiktok filters to lengthy debates on social media. It gives people the ability to produce detailed landscapes, portraits, and imaginative designs in seconds, by simply typing in a couple prompt words. This has led to immense popularity of programs such as DALL-E and Midjourney. Many news articles and trends have pushed forward the narrative of AI art as a new medium that represents the future of the industry. However, this led me to the question: what does this mean for human artists? Due to AI art’s appeal, there is the risk of them becoming overlooked, or ignored. Should these images even be considered art in the first place? And in what ways should these programs be used, if at all? In this article I will take a further look at how AI art creates these pieces, the impact it could have, and discuss whether the use of AI art in place of humans is ethical. On one hand, it can be argued that programs such as Midjourney make art more accessible. There is typically a subscription fee, but AI art is far cheaper than traditional artists’ work. It also allows anyone, regardless of ability, to visualise and make art. It is undeniable that AI art is easy and convenient, with images produced within seconds compared to the weeks, or even months, that it takes to create handmade pieces. At first glance the lower cost of AI art appears to be a benefit. Although, when you consider the contribution of art to the economy, many negatives arise. A study by the World Economic Forum (WEF) estimated that AI art will destroy 85 million jobs by 2025, sending not only artists, but graphic designers, animators, and many more in the field into poverty. Arts and culture amounts to almost $1 trillion in the global economy, and if AI art replaces artists on such a high scale, less profit from traditional art will be made, severely altering the economy. Is more affordable artwork really worth such detrimental impacts? Many view AI art as a modern invention, which people are afraid of embracing due to the changes it brings. However, in actuality it is more similar to an algorithm, or a database: unfeeling, random, and far from creative. Essentially, these programs learn to recognise patterns and art styles from human artists. Without permission or giving any compensation, they are trained using art across the internet to create a final, new product. This is why pieces are generated so quickly: they aren’t original, but the result of thousands of different works compiled into one. Moreover, the founders of Midjourney argue that the works in their database were shared for free, and because the final product appears to be different, they’re not violating any laws. On the other hand, this doesn’t change the fact that they are profiting off these artists, who publish their work online simply so that it could be enjoyed by others. AI art then uses this work to actively take opportunities from the said artists! The irony of AI art undermining those who make these programs possible in the first place is indisputable. AI art is naturally unethical, due to the way it is generated. By stealing from artists, without facing consequences, it gives people the false assumption that artists are replaceable. People in the art industry lose motivation and are treated with much less respect. This is shown through Greg Rutkowski, a famous video game illustrator. His name has been used roughly 93,000 times as a prompt, to the extent that it is now hard to differentiate between his work and AI. People have even started using these programs to impersonate him. This
illustrates the danger of these programs: with practice they can copy the specific identity and style of an artist.
AI art Rutkowski’s work Furthermore, by looking at the vocabulary surrounding AI, we can recognise its limitations. For example, AI art is ‘generated’, while art made by humans is ‘created’. This highlights why AI will never properly be an artist: it doesn’t have intention, or show meanings through its work, as these traits are inherently human. Instead, the programs are primarily focused on aesthetics, which are important, but not the main reason why art is appreciated, made or bought, which can be seen in modern art collectors. To summarise, AI art is accidental. Eventually, AI art could be modified to be used in a way that benefits artists, rather than taking from them. For example, artists could use AI to experiment with colour schemes or gather fictional references. It could also help architects with more mundane tasks, such as generating a model of a building and seeing what changes should be made. Nonetheless, AI art should make sure all the work in its database has been permitted to enter the algorithm by its artists, before it is used in any way. In conclusion, whether you're taking Art for GCSE, or never want to pick up a paintbrush again, we all know the feeling of someone taking credit for your work: it is alarming how quickly this theft from artists is becoming normalised, and accepted. AI art programs do have potential to help artists in innumerable ways, but until its issues are resolved, it is simply unethical. In an age where technology is advancing faster than ever before, it is imperative that we don’t lose sight of the value in human creation.
Should animal testing be outlawed? Animal Cruelty
by Aurore Lebrun
Animal Cruelty is one of the most notable rising issues in today's world, as a society we have seen the prominent rise of movements such as veganism and the significant impact of organisations such as PETA. In fact, we see many brands start to move towards animal-testing free habits all in the collective effort to improve the lives of animals around the globe. Recently, Aveda announced the renunciation of animals from its testing sites, thus further shedding light on the controversial topic. However, this imminent rise in care overlies a key question: How long has this been an issue and since when do we care? The condemnation of animal cruelty has been notably highlighted throughout the continuum of time.In the east, religious sects such as Hinduism dictate that all living creatures have souls and all share the same deserving quality to be protected by humanity. Moreover, religious figures such as Ghandi continuously stressed the pivotal importance of equality for all species as ‘ the greatness of a nation can be divided into the way animals are treated’ thus suggesting in order to live in a happy, functioning society one must care for all beings and not use animals as means to an end and instead respect their existence. This idea is also further explored through the concepts surrounding reincarnation as individuals are encouraged to treat animals as if they were to contain the soul of an ancestor, thus rendering the issue of animal cruelty not only a political one, but also a personal one. Although, abrahamic religions such as Christianity argue that all life on earth is sacred seeing as we all came from the same omnipotent god and thus should all be treated with respect and care. As a christian individual, one is expected to take on the role of Stewardship and protect God’s divine creation like mentioned time and time and time again in Genesis. However Christians also highlight a focus on human domination and control of the earth, with most Christian denominations stating that man is the pinnacle of creation. Therefore, throughout time individuals have accepted that this interpretation means animals are placed on earth for the benefit of humans thus making cosmetic testing and drug testing perfectly acceptable as in the long run, they improved the life of humans, this works in accordance with the christian principle of dominion and the natural hierarchy which is imbedded between species. Through the evident impact of religion on society, we see these morals interlaced with the laws we have in place today, especially if we delve deeper into the laws of ASPA of 1998. The ASPA laws were created in response to public outrage around the frequency of animal cruelty in Great Britain. Previously, only testing on Apes and Chimpanzees was banned back in 1986, however pharmaceutical giants such as Pfizer simply shifted their focus onto ferrets, dogs and virtually any rodent you could possibly name. In return, the UK aimed to tighten their regulations on the matter as the act itself aims to regulate the use of protected animals in any experimental or other
scientific procedure which may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to the animal. This all in all highlights how the British contemporary view of animal testing ultimately complies with the intrinsic christian values which surround animal welfare. Moreover, more modern thinkers such as the likes of Peter Singer completely disregard ‘ archaic’ religious thought and call for the rights for animals. Singer further argues for the ethical consideration and rights of animals. He believes that animals, like humans, have interests and the capacity to suffer, and therefore, they should be included in our moral considerations. Singer’s ideas completely contrast the Christian idea of dominion as he aims to level all living beings on the same platform and not to value one life over another as we have no basis to do so. Overall, it is abundantly clear that the issue of animal cruelty is not a new one, and is a largely disputed one. Furthermore, what makes the topic so controversial is the contrasting religious and theological views which all connote differing interpretations of the same topic. Whilst christian values may be deeply ingrained within the British statute of lawmaking, it is clear that they do not align with the ideas of more modern theologians such as Singer. Singer’s ideas are further emphasised through current, popular movements such as veganism which have only gained popularity in the last 50 years. Although animal cruelty may not be a new issue discussed in the news, the way we look at it and emphasise with other species has changed greatly as time progresses.
Discussing the ethics around nuclear weapons by Elena Maddocks Discussing the ethics around the use of nuclear weapons Upon witnessing the detonation of the first atom bomb in 1945, Robert J Oppenheimer uttered the now infamous quote originating from the Bhagavad Gita:‘’Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds” - an existential reflection of a creator who realises the irreversible damages of his own creation. A creation fundamentally designed to instantly eradicate communities, memories and homes, leaving only an uninhabitable wasteland in its wake. In the current year of 2023 there are 9 states who possess nuclear weapons, with over 90% of the 12,000 warheads belonging to the USA and Russia. With geopolitical relationships constantly fluctuating and tensions rising, we are now forced to find a moral, just and ethical way to effectively avoid the overarching threat of complete nuclear destruction - there is no turning back. So far nuclear weapons have been utilised to provide nuclear deterrence - a concept which relies on nuclear weapon owning states being paralysed by the threat of mutually assured destruction, and as we are currently in the longest period of non-war among great powers since the development of the modern state system 400 years ago it is safe to say this system has been proven effective. But is this the most moral solution? For this we can argue from a Consequentialist point of view, Consequentialism being a mode of ethical reasoning which assesses the morality of an act by assessing how likely it is to achieve its goal and how worthy such a goal is. In this case the consequence is a world devoid of major conflicts, and a great fewer number of innocent lives lost to war. This utilitarian (utilitarianism is considered a branch of consequentialism) use of nuclear weapons was expressed in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as the majority of people contribute it to Japan’s surrender and the end of WW2. Another argument from a more political standpoint is that we have no choice but to resort to nuclear deterrence, as trying to coordinate a simultaneous deactivation of nuclear weapons across 9 states with highly contrasting cultures and values would be met with high resistance. This was proven in 2017 when a treaty declaring the ‘Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons’ garnered 93 signatures, none of which were from the 9 states that actually possessed the nuclear weapons. It could also be said that if one state were to abandon their nuclear weapons this could encourage other states to exploit them, as well as forcing exposed umbrella states to start developing their own nuclear weapons which would then increase the likelihood of a nuclear war. It is also important to consider the probability of this ‘world peace’-esque outcome. Some nuclear abortionists claim that as long as nuclear weapons exist, war is inevitable. This is plausible if we view the probability as an independent probability - if you flip a coin once the chance of landing on tails is 50%, but if we were to do this once a year for 10 these chances rise to 99.9%. But of course it has been over a decade since 1945 and this is because there are both independent and interdependent probabilities that contribute to nuclear war. For example the likelihood for a nuclear war was lower in 1963 than it was in 1962 due to the Cuban Missile Crisis deterring leaders from nuclear war. However the inevitability theory could still be valid due to the fact that as long as there are no international laws restricting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the odds of an accidental nuclear war and/or nuclear armed states losing government control and instead falling under terrorist rule increases. Recent studies have also questioned whether the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were inherently moral, which leads us to doubt whether state leaders are to be trusted with nuclear weapons when in the high stake situation that is war.
Just War Theory Just War Theory can also be used to answer the question on whether a nuclear war is just if it were to happen. JWT can be divided into two major categories: jus ad bellum - ethical guidelines for choosing to go to war (eg a just cause, competent authority, right intention, last resort, probability of success
and proportionality), followed by jus in bello which dictates behaviour during war (eg proportionality and discrimination). As I have limited space I will focus on the jus in bello half.
Proportionality With the technology of today ever improving, the atomic bomb can be designed to exert a controlled amount of force and have an accurate aim to be compliant with proportionality. However the effects of a nuclear bomb are highly destructive and inhumane, both long term and short term. As seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, innocent civilians can be vaporised instantly if within close proximity to the bomb - others suffer from 3rd degree burns and radiation poisoning that can eventually result in death. The radiation also causes huge environmental long term impacts, and if you combine this with the humanitarian crisis that is also created from a nuclear bomb it raises the question whether this outcome could ever be proportional to the desired end.
Discrimination In a just war, all military acts should be carried out with the intention of protecting as many civilian lives as possible. Ideally, in this just nuclear war the bomb’s targets will be military bases or weapon production sites. However as this war progresses more and more retaliation may be needed, rendering it increasingly unlikely that citizens aren’t caught in the crossfire. Due to the high amounts of ionising radiation that an atomic bomb creates it also makes the bombed area highly dangerous if someone were to be in its proximity, which could then lead to further accidental civilian deaths in the distant future. Ultimately there is no way to eradicate the knowledge of the atomic bomb, making total nuclear abolition impossible. Instead we must make a global effort to find a way to live amongst nuclear weapons in the safest and most moral way possible. We must remember that at our core we are a species whose future is dependent on the survival of the next generation, and in a world destroyed by nuclear warfare this would simply be impossible.
Should robots have the right to kill? by Nina Freudenheim
Should Robots be given the right to kill?
When considering this question, it is important to first define what a robot really is and this according to the Oxford dictionary is a ‘machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically’. In this case, these human movements would become killing. Why is this a question we must ask? Because the rapid development of artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT has led to our increased awareness of the extensive capabilities of AI and in view of this, a hesitancy to allow such advanced technology to play pivotal roles in our society. Seeing as we’re already fearful of technology’s ability to grasp mere basic skills such as translating texts or condensing a Wikipedia page, it stands to reason we’d be even more dubious about a robot having the ability to kill. And yet this is a question many are contemplating - because as detrimental as it might seem to have robots who could kill people, if used in the context of war would it save a greater number of people? This of course is a utilitarian argument (an ethical theory established by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham) which determines the most ethical choice as the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. However, it is an argument worth considering as if robots could kill, would humans be able to make them fight wars for us? And save the cost of human life? One advantage of granting robots the right to kill would be the supposed improved precision of the robots in killing compared to humans. If they’d been programmed for this purpose then they would be even more effective than humans at killing, while perhaps also being able to uphold humanitarian laws more strictly. The primary benefit however, would be the reduced risk to human soldiers. If forces became technological rather than human then there would be a considerable decreased threat to the loss of human life. In theory, it sounds like a perfect solution but often the whole aim of war is to make another country (your enemy) vulnerable enough that they concede to your aims. If you’re not invested in the loss of human life then would we still have the motivation to end wars? Robots killing other robots seems unemotional and not concerning enough that there’s still a desire to stop such a fight as there’s no real cost for humans. On the other hand one could argue that a fight between robots could cause severe damage (particularly due to their precision) to the environment in which it took place so while human life wouldn’t be destroyed, the area in which the fighting took place would be. The loss of land is pretty significant considering humans need land to live on and live off. A disadvantage, though, of robot warfare would be that the inequality between different nations would be exaggerated. If one country can afford to develop superior robots or simply more robots against a force of cheaply conceived robots then there is a mild problem but one similar to when one country has more troops which is somewhat inevitable, however if one country has robots and one has none (which seems realistic given the probable expense of robots with these capabilities) this would lead to human forces battling robotic ones. What sort of war is that? One in which one side suffers immense human loss while the other suffers the mere loss of a battery. The two are in no way comparable. Another ethical concern would be that the use of robotic forces would lead to a lack of accountability for military actions. Would there be less consideration for the outcomes of military conflicts if humans aren’t directly responsible for the killing? Robots also have no empathy or human judgement. Their decisions would be pre-programmed with no compassion included for other humans or the environment. This is why I feel the ability of robots to kill is not an advantageous development which should be used in warfare as the transition from human forces to robotic forces wouldn’t be immediate and
would occur at varying rates for different nations which would lead to drastic inequality. Even if all nations had robotic forces at their command, there still remains a plethora of ethical concerns over accountability, and the possible damage to the environment. The only real benefit is reduced casualties. Is this enough of a reason to implement such novel methods of killing? Warfare is already considered greatly complex - a concern of many is that robots would only be an additional complication. And how much control do humans truly have over them? If we already fear the misuse and uncontrollable nature of milder AI like ChatGPT then robots justify an even greater fear.
Is euthanasia moral? by Antara Martins One does not fear death. One fears what they may have to go through to get there. The aversion to suffering and the intrinsic inclination toward self preservation remain pervasive within the human psyche, and this serves to influence the direct actions and decisions we leverage through our own agency. In the face of unrelenting suffering that surpasses the limits of our endurance, especially as it pertains to biomedicine and scientific advancement, the contemplation of euthanasia often emerges as a favourable choice to incurable patients. It is important to distinguish that this choice is predominantly born not out of recklessness or malignity but a result from the depths of profound contemplation, ethical introspection, and emotional turmoil to align personal values with the harsh reality of insurmountable suffering. Euthanasia is defined as the practice of intentionally ending the life of a patient afflicted with an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Many countries prohibit this form of assisted death, considering it illegal and punishable by law, yet some states that have decriminalised and actively legalised this process include Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, all of which outline specific circumstances and stringent guidelines to accompany these changes. The question at the heart of this discourse, however, is why is euthanasia considered a favourable, moral option by some, yet severely criticised and denounced as immoral by others and is there an indisputable conclusion we can draw? If one operates under a utilitarian principle, the reduction of suffering and maximisation of overall happiness or well-being is of utmost priority when considering governmental legislation or action in general to be moral. Indeed the father of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, is a proponent for this idea. He might argue that if euthanasia has the capacity to alleviate excruciating pain caused by terminal illnesses and that the relief of said pain would produce an overall net happiness or pleasure to the individual than to live and bear the weight of it, then euthanasia could be morally justifiable. It is important to remember that the suffering of patients who consider euthanasia is not solely limited to pain in the corporeal sense but depression, fearing loss of control or dignity, feeling a burden to relatives, or a dislike of being dependent as well, which causes an additional psychological turmoil to their suffering. Conversely, the suffering of relatives at the loss of a family member due to euthanasia must be factored into this utilitarian equation, as surely the passing of their family and the burden of grief consequently would not bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Indeed, this may be the case but Bentham does account for this and posits a qualitative calculation, assessing the balance of pleasure and pain involved in the situation. If the relief of suffering for the individual and their loved ones outweighs the pain of grief following the patient’s loss of life, Bentham’s utilitarianism would suggest euthanasia is strongly moral. However, I would argue that there is a component of this discourse that is missing : whilst it is indeed significant to assess how one’s decisions may impact those around them, the question remains : must we? Can our own agency and free will be enough to morally justify decisions? From
a libertarian angle (a moral and political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom, autonomy and minimal government intervention in personal matters), one had the right to make decisions about one's own body and life without external interference (self determination). Under this narrative, laws prohibiting euthanasia could be seen as a fundamental infringement on personal liberty. Libertarianism may support the idea that individuals have the right to use their agency to determine how they die and that the government or any external authority should not interfere in an individual’s choice to undergo euthanasia if they have made a rational and voluntary choice to do so wherein they possess the capacity to give consent. Consequently, one could argue that to criminalise or fault euthanasia is undermining the concept of free will, autonomy and liberty. However, it can be argued that the principle of euthanasia itself is in violation of natural law : the philosophical ideology that adamantly defends and values the sanctity of human life. It operates under a teleological framework under which human existence is emphasised to have an inherent purpose or telos for example the innate desire to seek fulfillment, success, happiness and love. In light of this perspective, human existence is considered to be fundamentally good and hence worthy of preservation under any circumstances. Indeed natural law operates under the idea that “every human life is sacred, because every human person is sacred…from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.” As a result, euthanasia is directly in conflict with natural law as it does not conform to the established, inevitable process of life. Further if we revisit the earlier argument of the libertarian’s approach to euthanasia, we learn that an individual possesses the free will to undergo euthanasia when they have the capacity to give consent. However this fails to account for the large percentage of patients in permenant coma or unconcious for whom euthanasia is mainly considered for. As they are not in a state whereby they can understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision, the consent of these patients may be handed over to their medical practitioners or immediate family instead. Now, if this becomes the case, there is a prodigious issue with euthanasia as one would operate without consent of the individual to in effect take their life. Regardless of whether it is immediate family, much less if it was an unrelated doctor, the patient is stripped of their ability to self preservation which one could argue is the most cardinal wrong. Ultimately, the debate and discourse over euthanasia challenges us to construct an intricate balance between respecting an individual's right to liberty, agency and autonomy whilst also respecting natural order and examining the potential ethical dubiousness that accompanies invalid consent. As we strive to address the suffering of terminally ill individuals, it is imperative to prioritise safety, care and respect which will in turn foster a compassionate society that values human dignity. -
Antara Martins
Should AI be allowed to grow and adapt alongside modern day society? How does Kantian ethics apply to the use and existence of AI? by Maya Erkman The sudden proliferation in the awareness, development and use of AI has prompted many concerns surrounding the morality of its presence in contemporary society and its seeming lack of impartiality. These concerns lie within issues such as apparent bias and unfiltered content, to unreliable information and the potential threat it imposes on future careers. However, this article will focus solely on the exploration of how the renowned philosopher Kant, would likely approach the question, ‘Is the existence of AI ethical?’ Disputes surrounding the virtue of AI can be tackled from a deontological, Kantian outlook. With the rapid advancement of AI, many functions and scenarios arise where AI has the capacity to replace human decision-making and action. This is evident by the development of Self-driving cars, home and healthcare robots, and autonomous weapons. However, AI lacks reason which is essential to Kant’s approach to decision making. Due to this, AI will never have the ability to fully follow Kant’s categorical imperative. The categorical imperative refers to an unconditional moral obligation which is always binding irrespective of a persons’ inclination or purpose; it is a rule of intrinsic value that is based on reason, prescribing objectives and constraints on conduct. Kant illustrates this through his statement that, “All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.” ‘Senses’, ‘understanding’ and ‘reason’ are all qualities which AI currently lacks. Delving deeper into the root of the categorical imperative, it can be distinguished by three distinct for formations. The first being the formulation of universalisation. Kant believed that people should live their lives as though ‘every act were to become a universal law’. This means that while adhering to Kantian standards one cannot make a choice that they wouldn’t want those around them to make, regardless of external factors. An example of this would be the standardised general duty not to harm others. It’s inherently desirable for humans not to be threatened in the typical interactions so that they can freely live. Although there exist exceptional circumstances including; war time, medical intervention, and self-defence, harm is not a necessary condition for human existence or fulfilment. The duty not to harm others is fundamentally beneficial to humankind, protecting our physical and mental well-being, and valuing our existence as rational beings with free will. Due to the fact that AI is not sentient, it doesn’t experience the world in remotely the same fashion as humans and so cannot comprehend what constitutes a rule that is inherently desirable and valuable for it to be capable of universalisation. The second formulation of the categorical imperative, the principle of ends, cites that one should treat others as means in and of themselves and not as an end to their own individual goals. Treating humanity as an end in itself in the Kantian sense means recognising rational beings have intrinsic worth, rather instrumental values, and a self-determining capacity to make decisions. They are not mere objects or things to be manipulated, used or discarded on the basis of relative ends such as selfish desires and ambitions. In order to treat humans by their intrinsic worth, it is essential to recognise the rational capacity and free will which they possess as well as an accountability which they hold in their actions. Generally, humans accept that when immoral deeds are committed someone needs to be held responsible. How can artificial intelligence express person-to-person accountability and fulfil this aspect of human dignity? As AI is not sentient, it cannot comprehend a person’s intrinsic value and when making decisions won’t be acting out of duty but is rather forced to act in the manner in which it's programmed without any regard of that person’s individuality. It is challenging to apply the third formulation to AI as it currently isn’t entitled to any rights and therefore can’t treat others with the same considerations which it applies to itself. A core element of Kantian ethics is the concentration on human self-determining capacity for decision making. Irreplaceable human qualities such as; reasoning, judgement and self-assessment
allow for the development of ethical rules that are capable of universalisation. Such human attributes are non-existent in AI so that human agency is essential to designing the conduct and action of AI. A limited sense of rationality can be programmed in the machine but so far, it cannot reach the self-reflective human abilities. Meaning that AI will not be able to assess a given situation and exercise discretion in choosing a particular action or not. In closed scenarios where the technology is used for defined and specific tasks this limited rational thinking capacity may be utilised. Ultimately, when following Kantian forms of thought, AI is not qualified to engage in meaningful decision making. However, it’s existence as aids to humans while performing minor tasks which don’t require depths of consideration likely wouldn’t go against Kantian ethics.
Is genetic modification moral? Is genetic modification moral?
by Frida Kilmer
Genetic modification is a relatively new scientific advancement, with Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen being the first people to make a genetically modified organism in 1973. I myself have spent many nights wondering whether it is possible to create and manufacture the ‘perfect’ human, and the answer (all thanks to genetic modification) is yes! But please don’t. First of all, that’s a little weird, and second of all, just why? However difficult it may sound, genetic modification is also a relatively simple concept. The process involves moving a gene or genes from one organism to another. A gene is isolated from the desired organism using restriction endonucleases. A plasmid is cut using the same restriction endonucleases, so the gene and plasmid have the same sticky ends, resulting in them being able to be joined together using DNA ligase. The plasmid is put into a bacteria cell, which then divides by mitosis several times to produce genetically identical daughter cells. The bacteria is put into a fermenter to speed up the process. Whilst genetic modification has revolutionised the world of research, medicine and agriculture, it has posed some major ethical issues, stunting its rollout worldwide and sparking backlash from multiple organisations. As genetic engineering continues to develop and reach mainstream media, the concept of ‘transhumanism’ is growing , and propaganda surrounding it is being spread at a worrying rate at the hands of tech giants like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerburg. This social and philosophical movement grappling the world uses technology in the form of genetic modification to augment and enhance human capabilities, whether that be physical, or mental. Some even believe that we could be able to overcome limitations of the human condition such as disease, ageing and even death as a result of transhumanism. This concept is understandably difficult to come to terms with. It corrupts traditional ideas about the human condition and aims to completely change humankind as we know it. If transhumanism gets taken too far, or gets into the wrong hands, we could potentially see the end of the human species. To an extent, it could be perceived that humankind is violating God’s intent of our bodies being akin to temples, as well as humans being made in the image of God. As genetic modification technologies continue to develop, we will need to grapple with some tough philosophical questions about what it means to truly be human, and the impact transhumanism would have upon this definition. On the other hand, genetic modification has revolutionised agriculture and other aspects of society. For example, the invention of ‘golden rice’ has produced additional vitamins and improved nutritional value of golden rice. Golden rice contains genes from another plant and a bacterium which make the rice grain produce beta-carotene, a chemical that is converted into vitamin A. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that 250 million children are affected by vitamin A deficiencies, and that vitamin A supplementation could prevent 2.7 million childhood deaths. If something is ‘moral’ then it conforms to a standard of what is right and good, and most people would perceive saving lives as being a good, and consequently moral thing to do. Genetic modification has also caused crops to be drought and disease resistant, and therefore require less environmental resources, such as water and fertiliser, therefore from an environmental and economic point of view, genetic modification brings certain benefits and ‘good’. Genetic modification contributes to greater food security worldwide, but also reduced costs for food and drug production, bringing benefits to everyone. However, at the end of the day, nutrition and starvation doesn’t care about morality, and neither does death. So, I pose the question, is it right to sacrifice the
lives of many individuals, predominantly young children in developing countries, for the sake of ‘ethics’? Genetic modification, in my opinion, has revolutionised our world for the better. It has brought ‘good’ in the form of preventing death, and making things more accessible for all, but especially the most disadvantaged in this world, making it overwhelmingly more moral than it is immoral. However, it is important that this technology is used moderately, as if it gets into the wrong hands, we could see genetically modified humans in the future, and who knows what will happen then!
Should humans be permitted to colonise space? by Nicole Zabelina When we think of humans colonising space, we instantly think of shimmery, new rockets blasting people into space wherever and whenever they want, to visit beautiful, far flung galaxies that are inhabited by friendly people-like creatures that welcome us warmly. However, what we fail to see, is the danger, not to mention the unhappiness, that would be caused by humans colonising space. If humans colonise space, this would occur in the distant future - in many movies made in the ‘80s, people always talk about how in 2020 there’ll be flying cars and robots who’d do everything for you. But here we are, 2023, and no flying cars, perhaps a few robots, but we can clearly see that major space travel to other galaxies, even to other planets is not possible - humans definitely won’t be able to achieve such travel by before the end of this century. And, arguably to colonise space, humans would need to quickly travel from planet to planet. This would entail advanced levels of technology to allow continuous journeys. If, in the future, humans are capable of colonising space, there are two very different perspectives to consider - whether it should be pursued or not. Firstly, humans colonising space could have beneficial outcomes, like socialising with other living beings which could lead mankind on to new discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. Humans might also adopt better ways of life from other settlements, provided they exist, that could improve our planet and could tackle issues such as global warming. Other planets might have resources that could be used to advance our planet and possibly our economy. However, as depicted by many novels and movies, attempting to colonise space may lead to overwhelming power struggles among other potential life forms and opposing civilisations within Earth itself. Space is vast, and the chances of another life form is very high, so humans colonising space may lead to disputes about ownership. This could possibly result in a dangerous outcome like an interplanetary war. Moreover, if a settlement is more ancient than humans, then what gives mankind the right to go and claim what has already been established as theirs? This is simply unjust. But, if we claim certain planets that are hospitable, then some humans could settle there, which could solve the looming problem of the Earth being overpopulated- there currently exist around 8 billion people living on Earth. If this issue of overpopulation can be tackled, then Earth's standard of living could rise: there would be reduced pollution; there would, in theory, be more resources for individuals; and humans could reinstall many trees and green areas. There are many more policies which could be implemented with similar benefits. If we were to start a completely new settlement in a different place, many problems would arise. Some of them being: it an extensive period of time to create a whole new way of life on a different planet; what if the planet turns out to be inhospitable and lots of people suffer? How would society determine the disparity of humans that should inhabit each location? Overall, there are many viewpoints to consider when approaching this question. I believe, due to the propositions listed throughout, that it would ultimately be a good idea for humans to colonise space.
IVF and Surrogacy – the pinaccle of scientific ethics Caroline Burns withpinnacle commentary by Aurore Lebrun IVFby and Surrogacy - The of scientific ethics IVF and Surrogacy are two alternative practices which enable pregnancy for women who are unable to conceive naturally. For clarity, IVF is the procedure used in surrogacy in which the strongest embryo of a collection of fertilised eggs is inserted into the womb of either the biological mother or surrogate. The embryo will implant into the lining of the womb and hopefully lead to a successful pregnancy. Both options are widely used and tested by mothers universally, with around 750,000 IVF babies born worldwide in 2019 according to ICMART data. Now, how does IVF work? Once IVF treatment is accepted, both sex cell-donating participants will undergo many blood tests and scans, looking for any cancers, blockages and reasons as to why pregnancy through IVF will be unable to occur. The mother’s ovarian reserve (number of eggs in her ovaries) will also be looked at as a lower egg count can often lead to lower quality and quantity of the ovules. Once this is all approved, the first step is suppressing the natural menstrual cycle, the medication administered through either a nasal spray or a daily injection. Once her period has been stopped, FSH (follicle stimulating hormone) is taken which increases the number of eggs produced. These eggs are then able to be collected and fertilised prior to the injection of the hormone hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) which matures them. The collection process is done via a needle that is able to go into the ovary and collect the ovules. Sperm are then mixed with the eggs in a lab and fertilisation of The eggs occurs, forming embryos. In some cases, the sperm have to be individually injected into the ovules. This process is known as intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Once the embryos have formed, they are left to grow for 6 days and then the best 1-2 eggs are chosen to be transferred into the womb through a catheter (a thin tube). Any left over embryos may be frozen for future IVF cycles. How successful is IVF and what are the risks? In 2021, a series of statistics were gathered surrounding IVF results. For 18-34 year olds, the average success rate of the procedure is 41% (using fresh embryos), which is an incredible distinction between the 6% success rate for 43-50 year olds on the older end of the spectrum of patients. For these older patients, the success rate is clearly not as optimistic as their younger counterparts due to their being less able for the body to facilitate a growing zygote but also due to their risk of miscarriage and birth defects. It is important to recognise that risks such as these are not purely exclusive to the older calibre, with many side effects of IVF being detrimental to either the baby or mother. Some of these notable risks include Ectopic Pregnancies, Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS) and Multiple Births. Ectopic pregnancy is the implantation of an embryo in the fallopian tube rather than the womb. Some of the symptoms include stomach pain and bleeding; the treatment results in the pregnancy being terminated (through methotrexate or surgically). OHSS is more rare and is a result of a negative reaction to the medicine used to promote egg production. Symptoms can include pain and bloating in the stomach, shortness of breath and faintness. Mild cases can be treated through increased fluid uptake, drainage of abdominal fluid and anticoagulants (medicine to prevent blood clotting). More severe cases may end up in admission to hospital with the administration of IV fluids to suppress ovarian activity or a termination of pregnancy. Multiple births is the chance of producing twins or triplets from the insertion of more than 1 embryo. This doesn’t initially sound like an issue however it
doesmassively increase risks of miscarriage, anaemia, gestational diabetes, premature births and other long-term complications such as cerebral palsy and newborn respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS). The way this is prevented is through the disallowance of women under 40 to have double embryo transfers unless there are no high quality embryos to choose from. IVF is a very well tested, widely successful practice which leads to many births every year. It is very important to note however that there are some difficulties with IVF. For one, in-vitro fertilisation is very expensive. The average cost of one cycle of IVF in the US is $12,000$14,000, excluding medications. In Europe, one cycle costs between €3,500-€6,500. In the UK, one cycle through private care costs around £5,000. The NHS has a very specific criteria that must be met before you are allowed to access IVF through their services which makes receiving public treatment relatively difficult. Only needing one cycle of IVF should not be the expected outcome, with up to three rounds being the optimal number. The total costs of these treatments are not achievable for many prospective parents, particularly with the factored-in cost of what is needed to care for and support a child.
There are two different types of surrogates that people typically work with: Gestational and Traditional. A traditional surrogate is the biological mother of the child, who gets inseminated with the sperm of the father which fertilises her own existing eggs. A gestational surrogate is a surrogate who is impregnated via IVF and has no genetic ties to the child. Gestational surrogacy is found to be more common. Finding a surrogate is a very particular process as it requires a lot of trust and there are a lot of complexities to the process that need to be agreed on. Most people tend to ask family members or close friends to be their surrogates as there is an already-established bond. For those who look elsewhere, fertility clinics are unable to recommend people to you so it is a decision made purely individually. When looking for a surrogate, there are many websites, criteria and information pages to help form a profile. For both forms of surrogacy, it is recommended that the surrogate is between 21-39 years of age, has undergone an uncomplicated, successful birth before and has a positive psychological evaluation. Issues of giving up the baby or dangerous activities such as drinking and drug use are attempted to be avoided through this process so that any suggestion of abnormal activity is understood before the embryos are implanted. It is undeniable that these alternate routes into parenthood allow for a wider scope of individuals to achieve what may have been a lifelong dream. For example, Mothers with a history of miscarriages or other bodily traumas, people unable to adopt, same-sex couples, single men or women who still want to be parents and people suffering with infertility are some of the many reasons people look at alternative pregnancy methods. Despite all the high costs, legal complexities, and potential for failure, people continuously choose to use these alternative strategies as they present an opportunity of parenthood, a concept which may have at one point seemed unreachable. However, the concept of IVF and surrogacy is entirely alien to a significant proportion of our population. Groups such as our grandparents, and even parents may feel unease at these new scientific discoveries. These beliefs can largely be attributed to the attitudes of the
Roman Catholic Church and their reluctance around irregular reproductive methods. Moreover, the disposal of unused embryos proves to be an area of grand concern, due to their lack of accordance with the infamous sanctity of life principle. The Christian Church argues that the embryo is entitled to the same moral respect as an adult human being, thus making the welfare of embryos the priority concern. Furthermore, this concern is extended to surrogacy as individuals have raised concerns over elements such as exploitation and the trauma of biological versus gestational motherhood on the human body such as the potential emotional challenges faced by surrogate mothers, as well as the psychological impact on intended parents and the child. This idea of gestational motherhood is extremely controversial, as some may argue surrogacy takes the most natural, human process of reproduction and commercialises it and thus the exchange of money for gestational services may raise ethical questions about whether reproduction should be treated as a commodity.