(b4 ur intro) Contention- This essay is in the form of an argumentative discussion.

It will argue the implications of eugenics technology in the context of the debate about
nature versus nurture. Then it will analyze arguments about there being a genetic
predisposition to the MAOA gene among males, in which this may incline them to
partake in criminal behavior. The essay will contain views from such scholars Savulescu
et al and Jenifer Brooks Crozier and will overall essay will argue against the use of
technology and genetic selection as it should be perceived as justly immoral.
Intro- Today there is a debate regarding eugenic modification; it is a constant and

escalating problem due to it containing interesting facts in regards to a specific genetic

tendency among males. New and recent information is being disputed among
bioethicists, lawyers and members of the public. There is a claim that there is a specific
gene that predisposes men to criminal tendencies. This gene is referred to as the
MAOA gene or the warrior gene. This recent study has sparked a debate regarding the
nature and nurture side among individuals in particular bioethicists.
Para 1- If we make reference to bioethicist Julian Savulescu et al (2006), they are

arguing for two selection models in which can eradicate the warrior gene. The first
option to eliminate the gene is to make genetic testing available to all and the second
option is to have the gene be enhanced by technology and to remove its existence. The
problem with both these options is that it goes against human nature and that both
options can be perceived as morally incorrect in specially option two to genetically alter
an individual.
If we choose to genetically enhance our potential offspring or the individual that carries
the gene this can create a world of racial segregation among individuals who are

enhanced and individuals who are not. It will furthermore aim and create a society that
is full of prejudice and a race of superiors vs. the naturals- being those not enhanced.
This is morally degrading to the individual who doesnt have a say and have to be what
their parents selected or naturally conceived them as.
This is can create an unrealistic depiction of society and furthermore produce negative
bullying, name calling and unnecessary problems that an individual doesnt need. There
also are physical and mental health implications that will indeed be numerous for the
individual who has been genetically altered. This then will have further consequences
for the individual later in life as they will be part of a negative and segregated society.
Para 2- Another reference to Lawyer, Jenifer Brooks- Crozier (2011) Croziers solution

differs slightly from Savulescu et al, her proposal is that there should be genetic testing
available for families who have exhibited the problematic gene and that their then
should be early intervention services (pg.1) put in place for the individual with the
genetic trait. However Crozier implies that individual males who exhibited the gene also
had experienced child maltreatment which them makes them prone to aggressive
behavior.
Also Crozier suggests that people who have experienced child maltreatment can use
the intervention services to help their hindered health. The problem with this link to child
maltreatment and aggressive behavior is that Crozier doesnt provide factual evidence
indicating what child maltreatment is. If individuals who happen to be male experience
mistreatment when they were younger underpins the meaning or suggestion that
everyone who has been treated badly need to be tested for the gene. Which would be

an extreme case to test half the population; it would just create disruption and an
annoyance to the society in which one lives.

Para 3- compare and contrast 2 Savulescu and Crozier both offer solutions to

eradicating this problematic gene yet Savulescu et al offers a more structured and
reasoned argument, as they put forward two solutions which do not offer an intervention
element. However, it is also argued that eliminating this gene will prevent crimes
committed in society. Once the gene has been eliminated disregarding how, this
enables individuals to live and lead their lives in a way free of violence and then not take
part in criminal behaviors. As this though is wrong to tamper with someones genomes
this is immoral and result in negative thoughts and emotions for the individual later in
life.
Conclusion- Overall, Savulescu et al and Crozier both make convincing arguments in

which differ slightly, this contributes to various mixed opinions from individuals with a
relative with the gene. Yet both scholars put forward solutions in eradicating this gene
but it still should be deemed as immoral and unfair to any individual.

+ dont forget references:

1. J. Savulescu, M. Hemsley, A. Newson and B. Foddy, Behavioral Genetics: Why Eugenic

Selection is preferable to enhancement, Journal of applied Philosophy, p.157-161,
Volume 23, No 12, Oxford, U.S.A, Blackwell, 2006.
2. J.B Crozier, Connecticut Law Review- Nature, Nurture violence- intervention services
for families, p.531-546, Volume 44, December, 2011.