Final answer:
Direct genetic manipulation has the potential to improve health and quality of life, but it may increase social inequality and reduce biodiversity. Utilitarian ethicists believe that the morality of these technologies depends on the balance between their potential benefits and harms.
Step-by-step explanation:
The concept in question is direct genetic manipulation, which has far-reaching social impacts. Human augmentation through genetic engineering can potentially cure or prevent diseases and eliminate disabilities. However, it carries the risk of widening the inequality gap by exclusively benefiting a specific subset of the population, possibly creating new forms of discrimination. Utilitarians argue that the benefits and harms must be carefully weighed to determine if the use of gene editing technologies is morally responsible.
Moreover, direct genetic manipulation could affect biodiversity, with germ-line interventions altering the human gene pool and potentially reducing our ability to adapt to future challenges. While new advancements in biotechnology, such as CRISPR, have made gene editing more accessible, the high costs could intensify existing inequalities by limiting access to wealthy individuals, therefore expanding the inequality gap.