Do you think it would be morally acceptable for Andre and Leslie to use PGD to have a deaf child? Why or why not?

Pick one of the following case studies and tell me what you think the morally right response to the questions posed at the end of the study are and explain why you think those answers are correct. You should defend your answer in terms of one or more of the main moral theories we have looked at (utilitarianism, natural law theory, Kantianism, or virtue theory). Tell me why you think the theory or theories you use would respond to the case as you think they would and why this theory or theory is the best way to think about the case. If any of the major moral theories would object to your response tell me why this is and why you think those theories are not a good way to think about the case. Your response should be at least 600 words.Case 1Selecting for DeafnessAndre and Leslie want to have a child. They decide to use a process called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In a 2006 story, the New York Times explained PGD as a process whereby “embryos are created in a test tube and their DNA is analyzed before being transferred to a woman’s uterus. In this manner, embryos destined to have, for example, cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s disease can be excluded, and only healthy embryos implanted.”1 Andre and Leslie, however, wish to use PGD to select for a disability: Andre and Leslie are deaf and want to have a child who will grow up immersed in Deaf culture, who understands the experience of Deafness, and who communicates via sign language.Some of their friends strongly object to their plan but find it hard to articulate exactly what is so wrong about selecting for deafness. Others argue that Andre and Leslie are compromising their child’s future by trying to engineer their deafness and that knowingly and willingly bringing someone into the world under these conditions is wrong. But Andre and Leslie respond that no child is born with an uncompromised future, and yet very few people think that having children is wrong in general. Many children are born into families whose circumstances are not considered optimal and in which opportunities may be limited, yet few would claim that these parents acted immorally by having children.In fact, Andre and Leslie argue that their child would have a better life if born deaf because they would be in a better position to parent this child, and because the family would experience the world in similar ways. Andre and Leslie also explain that they are not harming anyone by creating a deaf child. After all, since they are choosing which of multiple frozen embryos to bring to term, a different person will come into existence depending on which choice they make. Do you think it would be morally acceptable for Andre and Leslie to use PGD to have a deaf child? Why or why not?Case 2 Trigger WarningsA trigger warning is a disclaimer about potentially traumatizing material. Trigger warnings originated on the internet, so that people could be prepared for graphic discussion or images involving sexual assault, military combat, and other topics that tend to induce traumatic response, especially for survivors with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).Recently, many students have started to demand trigger warnings in the classroom as well. For example, students at Columbia recently demanded that classical Greek works such as Metamorphoses come with a warning about content involving rape. In some cases, students are also demanding that certain sensitive content not be addressed at all, at least in certain contexts. For example, students at Harvard recently asked that material on rape law not only come with a trigger warning but also not be included on exams. Many students also advise other students not to feel pressure to attend class discussions about material that might be triggering for them.Critics of trigger warnings claim that they threaten free speech as well as higher education itself. In particular, they claim that part of the role of higher education is to train students to challenge their beliefs and values – a process that can often be uncomfortable – and that trigger warnings conflict with this aim. They also claim that trigger warnings shelter students, making them hypersensitive and unprepared for the real world, which will not protect their feelings at every turn. This is especially true for students training for certain professions, such as law enforcement, medicine, or social work, where an ability to deal with potentially triggering material on a routine basis is often essential for success on the job.However, supporters of trigger warnings argue that these concerns are exaggerated. They claim that, while part of the role of higher education is to train students to challenge their beliefs and values, another part of the role of higher education is to create a safe, supportive environment in which students can do so as effectively as possible – an aim which trigger warnings help us to achieve. Relatedly, supporters also claim that trigger warnings do not shelter students so much as provide them with a quick “heads up” about potentially triggering material, so that they can prepare themselves to engage with this material in a productive way. Thus, supporters of trigger warnings argue, if anything it would be unfair not to provide trigger warnings in higher education, given that many students would experience trauma unnecessarily, and would therefore be set back in their education unnecessarily, without them.Are college professors obligated to provide students with warnings about potentially triggering material or not? Why or why not?Case 3 Compensation for College AthletesFormer Duke player and current college basketball analyst Jay Bilas is an outspoken critic of the NCAA’s stance on student-athlete compensation. In a 2012 opinion piece for the New York Times, Bilas argues that although “It is not immoral for the NCAA to make money off of athletics,” it is “profoundly immoral for the NCAA to restrict athletes from receiving compensation while everyone else profits.” He is referring to the fact that while high-profile college athletes provide universities, corporations, and the NCAA itself with windfall profits, the athletes themselves are not compensated except through scholarships. In his book The New Plantation, Dr. Billy Hawkins of the University of Georgia draws attention to another reality: the majority of athletes generating revenue for the NCAA and other institutions are African-American while the majority of people running those institutions and reaping the economic benefits are predominantly white. Proponents of compensation for student athletes point out that even when the studentathletes’ scholarships are factored into the equation, these students still generate much more money for the university than they receive. Additionally, because these students compete at such a high level, they spend more time training than focusing on academics. In short, student-athletes sacrifice their own well-being for the benefit of the university and receive relatively little in return. Opponents of compensation for student athletes, however, point out the difficulty that would come with paying athletes. Who gets to decide how much each athlete is paid? Would all athletes be paid the same? Or would athletes be paid according to how much revenue they bring in to the university? How would such a figure be determined? In addition to problems dealing with compensation, some argue that paying amateur athletes would ruin the spirit of college athletics. Love of the game and pride in representing one’s university and community may be diminished, opponents say, if athletes were compensated.Should college athletes be paid? Why or why not?Case 4 Restrictions on PornographyThe United Kingdom has recently taken steps toward limiting people’s access to online pornography. Though online pornography will not be banned outright, Prime Minister David Cameron is working to make it exceedingly difficult—especially for children— to access the material. Cameron’s plan involves setting up filters that will block out certain restricted content. Though families can opt out of the plan, the filters will remain active unless Internet subscribers choose to de-activate them. The plan also blocks certain violent content, material involving alcohol, smoking, and firearms, and “extremist and terror related content.”Some people think that habitually watching pornography and other material that has been deemed harmful has a detrimental affect on children’s moral development and subsequent behavior. For example, viewing pornography may dispose one to see others as sex objects rather than persons, and viewing scenes of gratuitous violence is likely to have a desensitizing effect. If pornography and other related content corrupt the innocence of childhood, then one could argue that the government and Internet providers have a duty to block or restrict inappropriate content.Critics of Cameron’s plan, however, contend that this policy limits freedom and amounts to nothing short of censorship. Even though users can opt out of the plan, opponents of Cameron’s plan claim that relatively few people will actually do so. As a result, whatever is deemed “restricted content”— content that, as critics highlight, includes much more than pornography—will be increasingly difficult to access. Moreover, Cameron’s opponents argue that any online filter, regardless of its level of sophistication, will inevitably block access to legitimate content. Free speech advocates decry the plan as limiting certain fundamental liberties. Finally, some critics argue that in deciding whether or not online material is appropriate for children’s viewing the government is overstepping its legitimate boundaries. It has been argued that such decisions are better left to families.Putting aside any legal questions, do you think Cameron’s plan is morally justified? Why or why not?