Second is what I call the pluralistic proposition. It argues that when people have fundamental differences about ultimate human goods and values, people should be free to make their own choices. A third powerful factor is simply the profit motive. I do not believe that we would be having a debate on much of the genetic technology were it not likely that a lot of money is to be made with it if it works. The last obstacle I would mention is the relief of suffering.
Some people believe that the relief of suffering is the principal aim of the good society.
No matter how much our health increases, it is never good enough. An enormous bias exists in favor of progress and innovation as the only real and serious means of relieving the human condition. Eric T. Juengst, Case Western Reserve University One of the features of the early debates on in vitro fertilization, besides the focus on physical safety, was an expression of moral unease. If we go back to 1972 and look at the moral boundaries of reproductive genetics, we see that they are clinical risks and moral revulsion. The discussion has shifted because we have so many more things to talk about.