Genetic Testing Ethics

The three theories of business duties to consumers include virtue ethics, greater good ethics (utilitarian) and universal ethics (deontological). Virtue ethics would say something along the lines of their business practice is currently unethical, but there are certainly a couple of standards and restrictions put into place which could set them on the right path. These standards and practices would likely include having an uninterested outside source check the accuracy of their data and interpretation, and refrain from using their services to market any products of any sort. It is hard to see utilitarian ethics ever having a qualm with this industry even with all or any number of its faults because there are so many ways of calculating the greater good. This is because it is dubious whether the money being produced is going to fund a purpose to provide a greater good than the suffering (or potential benefit) the customers might have experienced. Deontology would ask us to imagine a world that everybody is receiving information (be it true or false), about what is likely to be their condition of death, and would say that a universe in which everyone is running around knowing how they might die would be somewhat chaotic.

For the sake of answering this question let us pretend that all the information received accurately. Even then, the ethical permissibility of these genetic tests depends on the ethical system we subscribe to. Virtue ethics would not see a problem with it if there is no attempt to sell or market any other product or service aside from the test; otherwise, the company would be abusing people's fears. Utilitarianism can find this practice to be ethical, as it provides an overall boost in utility, meaning the greater good is achieved in their eyes. Deontology would not, as far as I'm aware there is not any provision in deontology that would ever accept this practice. This is because by granting the information of their potential health issues and potentially the cause of their own death would compromise their autonomy and self-determination.

It depends on which system we hold. Virtue ethics would be a definite yes. Likewise, there should not be in any circumstance that a utilitarian would ever oppose such a principle. In the location of a criminal, and a sample of DNA, only one person would be identified, and using that information will certainly assess the greater good of the public at large, so as long as the said public, believe that apprehending criminals is the greater good then yes. Deontologically, it is dubious as we are not treating the people and their DNA as ends in themselves. On the other hand, being able to solve the crimes and catch criminals would be supported by the universal maxim, as we'd have a duty to prevent living in a world of criminals.