Do you believe that it would be ethical for people to enhance their bodies using new technologies? If so, do you believe that such enhancement should be available to all, or only to those who could pay for it? If the former, how would you justify requiring some persons to pay for the enhancement of others? If the latter, how would you address the concerns about socila equity that such a
market-based approach might give rise to?
What will be an ideal response?
ANS:
This question should be answered by drawing on the article by Rodney A Brooks.
You might also like to view...
The duck-billed platypus is a mammal that lays eggs rather than giving birth to live young. To which one of the following claims would this be a counterexample?
(A) Giving birth to live young suffices for being a mammal (B) If something gives birth to live young, it is a mammal (C) Something is a mammal if it gives birth to live young (D) Something is a mammal only if it gives birth to live young
Elizabeth Anscombe introduced ______________ as a technical term in utilitarianism, stating that if we talk about consequences, then we must consider all of them, both intended and unintended
a. relativism b. bounded rationality c. consequentialism d. moral concern
"Your defense of ‘animal rights' makes no sense. You claim to be an animal lover, but you wear leather shoes and eat chicken salad on your toast" commits the fallacy of
A) ad hominem B) beside the point C) straw man
"Some politicians are liars" and "Some liars are politicians" are related by
a. obversion. b. conversion. c. contraposition. d. subimplication.