Many surprising factors contribute to economic success.
Many surprising factors contribute to economic success. One such factor is height. According to a study reported by J Polit Econ, “For both men and women, the relationship is striking: a one-inch increase in height is associated on average with a 1.4 percent to 2.9 percent increase in weekly earnings, and a 1.0 percent to 2.3 percent increase in average hourly earnings.” On average, the taller we are, the more money we make. This prompt will focus on the ethics of enhancement and not whether it is morally right for taller people to make more money than those with a shorter stature.
Enhancement surgery is now available to lengthen limbs so that a person can become significantly taller (six-plus inches). See the following video of a news story about a person who underwent this procedure. As the video states, these procedures are quite costly, ranging from $80,000 to $150,000.
Let's consider treatment versus enhancement. By treatment, we mean to restore a person's body to the status it would have without illness or injury. By enhancement, we suggest taking a person's body beyond the status it would have when free from disease or injury. Discuss the moral implications of pursuing enhancement surgery by selecting one of the ethical perspectives (prompts) below:
Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom with what a utilitarian would say using its core principles of welfare, impartiality, sum-ranking, and consequences about the moral permissibility of human enhancements. Explain how one of these theories supports your view. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. (USLOs 6.1, 6.2, 6.3) Contrast what a Kantian would say according to its core principles of universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity with what a utilitarian would say using its core principles of welfare, impartiality, sum-ranking, and consequences about the moral permissibility of human enhancements. Explain how one of these theories supports your view. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. (USLOs 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
Impartiality | Utilitarianism requires the happiness of the individual getting the surgery to be weighed equally against the happiness of everyone else. The pain, risk, and immense cost of the surgery for one person must be balanced against the potential benefit of that money for dozens of people needing essential care. | | Sum-Ranking | The morality of the act is determined by the net sum of happiness. * Negative Utility: The procedure is costly, risky, and may cause pain or complications. Furthermore, it reinforces the social discrimination against shorter people, potentially decreasing the utility of all those who are still short. * Positive Utility: The utility gains are isolated to the individual receiving the enhancement (higher pay, higher confidence). | | Consequences | The overall social consequences are the determining factor. If the enhancement starts a societal trend that only the wealthy can afford, it increases economic inequality and reinforces the bias, leading to a net decrease in collective utility. | | Utilitarian Conclusion: Likely impermissible. While the individual benefits, the immense cost, the risk of complications, and the negative social consequence of reinforcing social height bias lead to a net reduction in overall welfare when impartially considered. |
Supporting View: Kantian Ethics
I believe that the Kantian ethical framework provides the strongest moral argument for viewing human enhancement (specifically for non-medical social advantage) as morally impermissible.
The core strength of Kantian ethics in this context is the concept of duty and the formulation of the Categorical Imperative (Universalizability).
Rejection of the "Means to an End" Principle: The individual in the video is not seeking surgery to restore health (treatment); they are seeking it to gain an economic and social advantage in a competitive world. The motivation is to alter one's body to become a better tool for making money—treating the body, and by extension, one's intrinsic self-worth, as a means to the end of economic gain. Kant holds that humans possess dignity, not price, and should always be respected as an end in themselves.
Sample Answer
Contrast: Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism on Human Enhancement
The debate over enhancement surgery, such as the limb-lengthening procedure seen in the video, highlights a fundamental conflict between duty-based and consequence-based ethical frameworks. The procedure is costly (up to $\$150,000$ [01:25]), painful, and solely aimed at achieving a social or economic advantage rather than restoring health.
Kantian Ethics (Deontology)
Kantian ethics, founded by Immanuel Kant, assesses morality based on the intentions and universalizability of the action itself, independent of the outcome.
Core Principle
Application to Enhancement Surgery
Universalizability
Could the rule "Everyone should be permitted to use costly, risky surgery to gain a social/economic advantage" be consistently willed as a universal law? A Kantian might argue no. If everyone who wanted to be taller underwent this surgery, it would not equalize the advantage; it would merely raise the bar, leading to a perpetual, costly, and painful "arms race" that only benefits the rich. The act of seeking advantage through this method treats height as a social currency, potentially devaluing natural human difference.
Unlock Your Academic Potential with Our Expert Writers
Embark on a journey of academic success with Legit Writing. Trust us with your first paper and experience the difference of working with world-class writers. Spend less time on essays and more time achieving your goals.