Genetic enhancement that enriches emotional well-being is ethical

I am glad that my first experience in this site is against such a thorough opponent. I hope to be a worthy debater. Your premise, as I understand, is to genetically transform human’s negative emotions such as guilt, pain and depression into different gradients of happiness. To set the foundation for this debate, it would be fair if we define happiness as Enjoying, showing, or marked by pleasure, satisfaction, or joy. I intend to prove that it is unethical to replace human’s negative emotions with various degrees of pleasure, satisfaction or joy. Reply to my opponent’s introduction I appreciate the philosophical quotes made by my opponent; however, because they were made under the present circumstances of happiness not being a guaranteed fact of life, but something that has to be pursued, they actually constitute arguments in my favor. His first quote by Aristotle, makes my point, because one only considers an “aim and end” something that is not already under our power. So, according to Aristotle, genetic enhancement to guarantee happiness would take from humans such “aim and end”. His second quote by Kant suggests that we should make ourselves happy, but with enhancement we would not be making ourselves happy but made happy by others, since before our birth. The third quote offers a glimpse of the void that would occur when the happiness of the greatest number is achieved, not by morals and legislation, but by genetic enhancement. Happiness would not require morals or fair legislation. Responsible Parenting: Here my opponent brings as a debating point, genetic enhancement against hereditary congenital diseases. Such argument was not part of the original premise. The original premise did not include the genetic cure or prevention of diseases. That, in itself, is subject of a different debate. Because the genetic correction of conditions was not originally stated, this debate is about the genetic enhancement of average humans to replace negative emotions with degrees of happiness. Considering that parents are not experts in psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and genetics, I would totally take the parents out of an ethical equation. Ethics should only be assessed by those with full direct technical knowledge of the subject, that is, genetic enhancement. Those who would perform, or authorize such techniques without full knowledge of science and consequences are indeed the gamblers. Ethical systems that support enhancement Considering that most religions and philosophies are based on current and average human emotional traits, they should be ruled out as a measure of the ethics of enhancement. You cannot apply old premises to a completely new human biology, a new human biology different from the biology that was the result of thousands of years of evolution (or God’s design if you are a creationist). So what ethics can be applied to settle this debate? Pragmatism. As I stated in my acceptance statement, the ethics that should apply in this case are the basic pragmatic medical ethics: Do not do harm. Is Genetically Enhanced Happiness Harmful? To avoid undue speculation, I will assume that all the kinks in the genetic enhancement procedure have been ironed out and that no malignant physical side effects are present. The result of a genetic happiness enhancement is a baby that can only experience various degrees of happiness, and as such will grow up into adulthood. Is this harmful or helpful? Evolution produced pain and discomfort to direct humans to avoid or correct harmful situations. Absence of pleasure is not enough a motivator to avoid drinking scalding hot coffee before rushing to work in the morning, or to wear 10 pounds of unflattering garments in wintertime. Burning and freezing are motivators, they are negative sensations. They are necessary. Evolution likewise provided humans with negative emotions to direct them to avoid or correct situations, or to adapt to life in society. Those emotions also cause involuntary gestures and reactions that direct others towards certain behaviors. Your premise advocates depriving humans of such survival tools. I will give a few examples of the benefit of negative emotions: Fear is a basic and necessary emotion, because it triggers physical fight or flight responses needed for our survival. Pleasure, satisfaction or joy instead of fear is not a suitable response to a threat. Anger protects against exploitation. Anger causes involuntary reactions that are interpreted by the other party and is intended to cause a change of behavior. Pleasure, satisfaction or joy will not produce in self or others, a change of exploitative behavior. Guilt motivates to fulfill obligations to self and to others. Pain, can trigger reactions, like tears, that elicit compassion from others in times of need. I could keep going but there is ampleliterature on the matter. SUMMARY: Depriving average humans of the array of negative emotional tools that are a result of evolution is harmful, therefore, it is unethical. EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS OF EMOTIONS, Randolph M. Nesse, The University of Michigan The Origin of Emotions, Mark Devon. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...