Genetic enhancement that enriches emotional well-being is ethical

To start, the instigator rejects my definition of happiness, but does not provide his own definition. In lieu of that, he uses the expression “unimaginable emotional textures”. Since the debate requires for us to be able to at least conceptualize what we are arguing about, I will again try to define my opponent’s version of enhanced happiness as: “unimaginable positive emotion”. I urge him to present a different definition if he does not agree.QuotesMy opponent's quotes do not support his point, because our current means of reaching a state of happiness, involve, among other things, controlling or correcting situations that produce unhappiness. Since the individual, society and the environment constantly produce situations that need to be corrected or controlled, happiness is elusive. That is why Aristotle and Kant portray happiness as a goal, not as a permanent state. Concerning Bentham, he does not only imply that the greatest quantity of happiness is needed, but that it should be applicable to the greatest number of people. If the greatest number of people will be happy, not from social and moral conditions leading to happiness, but from genetic programming, it takes away, from lawmakers and society, the accountability of acting morally and fairly to prevent unhappiness and suffering. So the absence of negative feelings would result in the deterioration of morals and fairness. Responsible ParentingThe reason I limit this debate to enhancing emotions on average humans is because that was the original premise of the debate. I understand that genetic enhancement can be used to alleviate illnesses, such as clinical depression, but again, that is the subject of a different debate. In this case we are discussing the ethics of the application of a biomedical technique on a normal and healthy individual, for non-therapeutic reasons. My opponent claims that I dismissed his argument about gambling. Actually I did not, I specifically addressed it. He claims that the removal of negative emotions is not harmful. I debate for the con. That is the core of the ethics of this debate. In the case of parenting, permanently depriving a human of the capacity to experience negative emotions, which are survival tools, over the possible correction of a condition that only has a small probability of occurring, is gambling. In gambling, your chances of losing are greater than the chances of winning. The instigator’s premise is akin to parents requesting a permanent increase of a child’s blood clotting capacity, because there are people who are born with haemophilia. Ethical systems My opponent has presented as arguments the tenants of Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions that believe in hell as punishment for sins, or that consider suffering a result of free will. So those religions do not favor his argument, but mine. Both Buddhism and Hinduism invest Nirvana with connotations, not of happiness, but lack of attachments, disinterest. So those are not supporting his arguments either. The ethical systems that the instigator presented are based on happiness as we know it, as the result of actions to promote positive feelings or to avoid negative feelings, and not of a permanent status of “unimaginable positive emotions”. Since my opponent has placed most of this argument outside the sphere of our imagination, we have to limit ourselves to the simplest ethical principle, to do no harm. My opponent dismisses the connection between human biology an ethical systems. I disagree. Current human biology is a result of natural evolution. It produces emotions (brain chemistry), linking actions and behaviors with emotions. Most ethical systems deal with values related to human conduct. This is a series of connected links: values, conduct, biology, emotion. By removing negative emotions you have removed half of the emotional link in the ethics chain. Is Genetically Enhanced Happiness Harmful? To restate the parameters of this debate, they do not include a genetic increase of intelligence, a reduction of base instincts, or an increase in empathy. The instigator has reaffirmed that preference architecture will remain as is. He is just debating for an enhancement of happiness. I argue that lack of negative emotions will remove adaptive traits needed for life in society. My opponent claims that I underestimate the harm caused by clinical depression. I have not. I just claim that therapeutic use of genetic modification is not part of this debate. Genetic enhancement of happiness in normal individuals is superfluous, because normal individuals have natural mechanisms to increase happiness (fight depression) such as exercise, good nutrition, exposure to sunlight, and altruism. The instigator asks what harm is caused by happiness, when that is not the issue. Varied degrees of happiness are nothing new, absence of negative emotion is. He also contends that happiness enhanced humans will use their love and resourcefulness to deal with practical inconveniences. Again, this debate is about enhancing happiness, not about increasing intelligence (resourcefulness) or love (preference architecture), so he is advancing an unsupported conclusion. The instigator argues that human evolution selected for negative emotions, at a time when they were necessary, and that human evolution will select against negative emotions when they are no longer necessary. While I agree with this theoretical premise, there is nothing in his argument that supports the fact that negative emotions will no longer be necessary. They are a response to both human and non-human threats, events and social situations, which will remain mostly unchanged.My opponent claims that I believe that humans cannot continue evolving. That is false. I believe that we can make changes that could be considered man-made evolution; however, natural selection will still be a reality. Natural selection will determine if our artificial evolutionary steps will be successful or not. The instigator argues that artificial selection will replace natural selection. I argue that artificial selection will not be sustainable unless it follows (in an accelerated manner if you will) the exact same path as natural selection. The reason is because, in this debate, we are not considering a gross modification of the environment, or non-happiness-related aspects of human nature. Therefore modifying emotional biology when the rest of the environment and human psyche stays the same equates to permanently depriving humans of adaptive traits. That is harmful. The instigator advances that recalibrating the hedonic treadmill will facilitate critical discernment, and rational decision making. I disagree. Neuroscientist Robert Burton, in his book “On Being Certain” explains “certainty” as positive feelings can lead to beliefs that are not based on reason. In other words, positive feelings can hamper critical discernment.My opponent advocates replacing the guilt of abandoning a child, the fear of facing a risk, the anger produced by oppression, with various degrees of unimaginable positive feelings. Such positive feelings will not motivate the person to avoid risks, to avoid abandoning a child, to fight oppression. Negative feelings do. Sometimes negative feelings are required to survive, to move forward, and act morally. That is why they were embedded in humans as part of the evolutionary process. In conclusion, replacing negative feelings with unimaginable positive feelings does not outweigh the harm of permanently depriving normal individuals of an adaptive mechanism. That is why I say that genetically enhancing happiness is unethical. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be... http://www.pbs.org... http://www.emotionalcompetency.com...