Genetic Enhancement In Michael Sandel's The Case Against Perfection

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

Scientist are researching genetic modification for many reasons. Some people think we are not good enough the way we are, and want to create a ‘perfect’ person. We have been given the ability to learn how to heal sickness and fix wounds with science. However, we have a responsibility to use this information wisely. We have been created with unique gifts and those gifts are important to the enhancement of life. Likewise, while researching about the Author of “The Perfect Stranger”, Amy Sterling Casil, I have discovered that she also has similar feelings about the gifts that we have all been given. We need to consider a few things as we review Casil’s story “The Perfect Stranger”. First, medical advancement is a great thing. Next, we need to make sure we are taking responsible steps while advancing and not creating even more division in our society. And lastly, we need to make sure we don’t lose our diversity and unique qualities. Although, some people believe genetic modification is what we need to better the human race, in actuality genetic modification can be dangerous, because overstepping our boundaries will produce something that is no longer authentic or that is unable to relate on a genuine level.

The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to

1. Michael Sandel is against the genetic engineering of children. One way he establishes his argument is by addressing the reasons people see genetic engineering as morally acceptable and presenting his opinion on why these beliefs are not defendable. Specifically, Sandel addresses the issues with people rationalizing genetic engineering of children as morally permissible because it is giving one’s child the best chance at thriving in a competitive environment; thus, increasing their likelihood of success and happiness. Therefore, Sandel would directly oppose the statement by Caplan.

Those against human modification say that, like Frankenstein and his creature, the possibility for the process to “go south” is too great and shouldn’t be risked. Those in favor of the alteration respond with promises of bettering society through a new, disease resistant, genetically superior “species. ” They say that the creation of these superhumans would result in a higher standard of living, and, of course, glory. Cautioned to us by Mary Shelley almost 200 years ago and still true today, overstepping bounds in the pursuit of glory is a dangerous act and will result in failure. After all, seeds of promise, if nurtured

In the first portion of Sandel’s paper titled, The Case Against Perfection, Michael Sandel discussed the moral and ethics debate surrounding the notion of in the future designing our offspring by altering their genes prior to conception. Within his argument, Sandal focuses on four main arguments surrounding the following realms of enhancement: muscles, memory, growth hormone treatment, and reproductive technologies (Sandel 52). Firstly, Sandel argues that genetic modifications in improving muscles whether it be to aid in the elderly population, a majority whom struggle with immobility and must rely upon medical devices such as wheelchairs, walkers, or are restricted to their homes and consequently often have a decreased quality of life.

According to author Michael J. Sandel in his piece, “The Case Against Perfection,” the main ethical problem with genetic enhancement does not have anything to do with human autonomy. Rather, Sandel believes that the “deepest moral objection to genetic enhancement lies less the perfection it seeks than in the human disposition it expresses and promotes” (Timmons, 505). In other words, genetic enhancement is morally questionable because of how it affects our attitudes toward human beings. He claims that each case began as an attempt to treat

Genetic modification would provide the wealthy with unfair advantages, because they will have the availability to give their children higher intellectual genes. Over time, will make schools grow more expensive to make sure the most intelligent students attend their school. This of course would take decades to develop, but is plausible. Poor people will not be able to enhance their genes and will be left behind intellectually and socially. Because of the school change, the education department will enhance the level of difficulty, creating a larger gap between the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy would be able to pass all of the tests to do well in school, while the poor will not. This gap may also make a master’s degree or higher level of education not as impressive. Today, a bachelor's degree seems less impressive every year that goes by. With gene enhancement, every wealthy person will have their masters and it will no longer be as impressive. This would not be an immediate change. Something so large would take decades to be prominent. Whoever could afford this modification would be benefitted. Athletes who come from wealth would have unfair advantages that athletes that come from poverty will not have. Limitations will protect this from happening. If genetic modification is prohibited from being used for personal cosmetic enhancement and only for medical need, like late term abortion laws, society will not have to suffer and genetic modification may be

In his paper ‘The Case against Perfection: What’s wrong with designer children, bionic athletes and genetic engineering’ Michael Sandel presents an objection to the idea that couples have an obligation to use genetic technologies to have the best possible child, through violation of autonomy and the giftedness of natural lives. Sandel begins his argument by explaining the problem at hand of enhancement before he even gets into his opinions. He firstly explains that the use of genetic testing can be used two ways, the first being that it could help treat and prevent diseases such as cancer. The second and the one that Sandel objects to is the enabling of us to manipulate our own nature. This objection is what I will be talking about first. The new genetic advances could allow people to enhance their child’s genetic make-up, altering and enhancing their “muscles, memories and moods; to choose the sex, height and other genetic traits of our children; to make ourselves ‘better than well’.” Sandel believes that changing the genetic information of the child it violates the child’s right to bodily autonomy (control of who or what uses their body). He states that by “choosing a child’s genetic make-up in advance, parents deny the child’s right to an open future.” There is a loss of freedom and discovery for the child because their choices and talents about themselves have been previously picked for them. The child’s bodily autonomy is violated by the parents genetically enhancing them, pointing them in which direction to go and live their lives never fully allowing the so-called ‘designer’ child to be free and to be as autonomous as other ‘natural’

Humans desire perfection in everything, even if that means crossing the boundaries of natural life. A new looming untested technology, human genetic modification, raises questions as to whether it will advance human society or cause inconsistencies in the human genome. Essentially, this controversy will effect everyone since it is still early but it is an upcoming topic. Genetic engineering specifically effecting the next generations. Commentators on this debate argue that it will promote the positives of scientific advancements, but others dispute that this raises strong ethical concerns. Genetic engineering has the possibility to cure diseases while furthering modern medicine, but humans would abuse the process by creating a competitive

To really understand the world in today’s debate about genetic modification, you must know the difference between genetic modification and enhancement. Modification is the ability scientists and doctors have where they can change your child’s genes to help cure diseases they may have, while enhancement is used to create a smarter, faster, and stronger human being. These two uses of engineering get people confused because they think of them as the same. That’s why you must

Lastly, Sandel believes that the more our characteristics are a matter of chance rather than choice, “the more reason we have to share our fate with others (Kamm, Is there a Problem with Enhancement?).” According to Sandel, human beings are not products that can be “designed,” but rather deserve worthy of concern and respect in their own freedom and right. More importantly, Sandel discusses on the efforts to enhance children genetically has the potential to alter our autonomy and self-determination, and encourage discrimination (Kamm, Is there a Problem with Enhancement?). He leads to the conclusion that due to the desire for genetic perfection, ultimately destroys our giftedness of life and lead to further harmful consequences. Similarly,

Finally, my last reason why I do not support genetic engineering is because it will make some people enter a bad emotional state. In the movie GATTACA,when a person was perfect, but then later found out he had mistakes they would enter a suicidal state of mind. This happens because the person thinks they’re perfect but when they realise they are not they think they’re a failure. If we start genetically modifying our children they could experience something similar to this. We should just let everyone be

Savulescu’s argument also treats the children as a means to an end to his experiments with genetic enhancements which in turn is treating them with little respect according to Kant. Therefore, parent’s only duty is to raise their child to the best of their ability. Julian Savulescu’s argument has many flaws including the issues in regards to creating the “ideal” person, discrimination, and choosing for the child the idea of the good life that they should have. Although Savulescu tries to make genetic enhancement seem like a parent’s duty, a Deontologist would not agree because it is not something that all free and rational people would agree with according to their principles of moral law. Therefore, a parent’s only duty it to take care of their child, keep them safe, and raise them to the best of their ability. The child’s idea of the good life is something that they will have to decide for themselves as they grow up, not something that the parent is morally obligated to enforce

The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.