Genetic enhancement that enriches emotional well-being is ethical

Conclusion: Back to basics My opponent presented, as background for the debate, that genetically pre-programmed emotional well-being, preserving functional analogues of pain, depression, and guilt, as gradients of happiness, is ethical. He did not explain the mechanics of such functionality. He used the expression “textures (of happiness) conceptually unimaginable” which creates a fissure in the conceptual logic of the debate. He did not mention, in the background, that the debate was about genetic enhancement to eliminate diseases. This would make it a totally different debate because the ethics of the application of a procedure for healing, is different than the ethics of application of an unnecessary biomedical procedure on a healthy human. So I reject any therapeutic argument, on principle. My opponent presented as support for his argument: quotes, responsible parenting/gambling, religious and ethical systems. I stated that what he presented does not support his position, but mine. To avoid repetition, I will leave this issue to the reader. Not before noting, however, that while we disagreed about several of the above issues, we could both agree that the ethical principle of doing no harm is applicable. Is Genetically Enhanced Happiness Harmful?Yes it is harmful, thus unethical, because it deprives humans of adaptive traits needed for survival. My opponent admits that negative emotions currently have a function in society. He claims that I have not argued that functional analogues of negative emotions, interpreted as degrees of happiness are insufficient. I did make such argument, in Round 2, complemented in Round 3 with examples of three basic negative emotions: fear, anger, guilt and pain, and how their replacement with degrees of happiness is not enough to ensure survival. I drew a parallel with negative physical feelings, and provided a very interesting source about the Evolutionary Explanation for Emotions by Nesse. My opponent claims that my agreeing with the theoretical premise that when negative emotions are no longer necessary, they will be selected against, implies self-defeat. This is false. I specifically pointed out that I do not believe that there will be a day when negative emotions are no longer necessary. They are a survival trait resulting from evolution, same as physical pain. I have not argued against artificial mechanism to increase happiness. They exist already in the form of various chemicals, and procedures. What I argue against is the ethics of permanently depriving a healthy human of his adaptive tools. I have not accepted that sustainable human evolution will do away with negative emotions. The reason is because any sustainable selection process, natural or artificial, still has to contend with the environment and the behavior of humans, who will have the same preference architecture, and the same intelligence. In other words genetically enhanced happiness will not be sustainable. My opponent has not presented any evidence otherwise. My opponent argued from the start for replacing negative emotions with degrees of happiness.He argues that, all else being the same, positive emotions in genetically altered individuals will function the same as negative emotions, without the nasty feeling attached to negative emotions.What he fails to correlate is that negative emotions are caused by real nasty events, like loss, disease, oppression, and abandonment. Negative emotions are only the symptoms of whatever causes suffering. The real nasty events will continue happening whether the individual is enhanced or not. Emotions like fear of contracting a disease, pain of loss, and depression of abandonment, are produced by real events that have negative consequences for human survival.. Because these emotions are unpleasant, humans learn to try to avoid those events, and increase their chance of survival as species. What my opponent proposes is to divorce nasty emotions from nasty events, and wants to make us believe that positive emotions will function as equally effective motivators for us to avoid nasty events, just because he says so. I wish he would have presented, for our consideration, one conclusive overview of this functionality, apart from the use of the word “unimaginable” to define the textures of feelings he advocates. My opponent did not prove his core argument, while I offered a logical chain to prove mine. I tried to be as brief as possible to spare the non-genetically-enhanced reader from undue suffering. I was afraid that, if I made this too long, the reader’s naturally evolved adaptive mechanism will prompt him or her to shut off the computer before voting, and seek instead pleasant activities to preserve the species.