Julian Savulescu's Argument Analysis

In Michael Sandel’s book “The Case Against Perfection,” Sandel analyzes and contests the arguments surrounding the use of human genetic enhancement before presenting his own case in opposition to genetic enhancement. In this paper, I will argue that Sandel puts his whole case against perfection into question by failing to consider the similarities between healing and genetic enhancement.

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.

Humanity is always trying to find a way to make themselves better. In recent news, this has led to a moral debate on weather or not using performance enhancing drugs for sports is morally correct or not. But, what if we had already manipulated the human body to make it better before we were even born? This is what Bill McKibben is referencing in his essay “Designer Genes”, on the morality and the biological arms race that could result when dealing with genetic manipulation and engineering. Though the cat isn’t out of the bag for genetic engineering he references what scientists are doing to skim the fine line that laws and ethics have laid down for us. McKibben’s audience is people who can make laws

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.

Should parent be allowed to genetically engineer their children? : The ethical dilemma of designer babies.

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.

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

Contrary to Kitcher’s minimalist model that constrains eugenic decisions only to avoid neurological diseases, Gregory Stock’s position in the debate defends maximalist eugenics in which individuals have total free eugenic decision-making, including enhancement, without any state coercion. He wants readers to accept and adopt such a position by arguing that genetic engineering such as selecting and alternating embryos is an inevitable future and human destiny (7, Stock, CC p.279). For example, if redesigning humans became commonplace, Stock reasons that parents would give their children endowments they desire but could not otherwise obtain and thus further expand life’s possibilities to the next generation (8, Stock, CC p.276). In this society, people’s genes would become an embodiment of their parents’ values and preferences. People would arguably want such endowments since they would view modifications as beneficial in

While the previous ethical dilemma is more cut and dry, Sandel also grapples with the morality of futuristic technology that can engineer children to be a product of their parents’ will. Sandel mentions the Gattaca scenario, of a society that can remove any malignant gene from an embryo, creating perfectly healthy children with greater potential physically and mentally. Gattaca focuses on ethical issues such as the polarization of society between the genetically enhanced and the naturally normal, and the value of human individuality; however, Sandel chooses to focus on the morality of engineered progeny in terms of personal relationships (Philosophical Films, 1997). Sandel suggests that parent creating children exactly how they want them to be is immoral because it turns children into an object of man’s will, rather than a gift of life. If a child turned out exactly how a parent wanted it to, the experience of raising a child would be irrevocably altered. Normally parents have children with inevitable shortcomings, but this is good for two reasons; it teaches the parents humility and unconditional love for their child no matter what shortcomings they have, and it emphasizes the talents the child may have, allowing parents to appreciate the natural gifts and talents that the child is endowed with. If a parent engineers the perfect child, they never develop empathy for their child and unconditional love in undermined. If the child is perfect in all aspects,

Michael Sandel’s “Designer Babies” In Michael Sandel’s “Designer Babies”, the topic of genetically engineering children is discussed in depth. Michael Sandel gives his view on the possibility that it could soon be reality that parents could choose their children’s genes, but he does so in a way that may not be obvious at first glance. Sandel uses several strategies to give his opinion, and to attempt to convince others to feel the same way he does. While some of his ideas are valid, upon a closer look some of the things Sandel is saying may not hold to be as true as he would like us to think.

This following essay will discuss about how the advantages of designer babies potentially act as the enhancer that emerge the harms in the society. It is just because of this advanced benefits that introduced the disadvantages of designer babies. It is likely that there will be both moral and safety objections as there has been for in vitro fertilization, stem cell science and early gene therapy. The moral objections range from concerns about the manipulation of the germline to worries about the patenting or commercialization of the technology itself. The safety concerns, much like we saw with early recombinant DNA research include both potential dangers to the offspring of patients treated and to the

In his article defending procreative beneficence, Julian Savulescu argues that “couples…should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” (2001, 413). In this article, I argue that Savulescu’s conclusion introduces complications which challenge its practical application. These complications can be outlined as follows: a) what is best, in terms of non-disease character traits, is subject to change and irrationality; and b) unfettered selection by reproducers may have profound and unknown impacts on human populations. Accordingly, private, unrestrained genetic selection must be banned in the United States, with research permitted under careful oversight.

Medical professionals today can screen for certain genetic traits (genetic diseases and sex) with in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to obtain a healthy child, and reproductive technology continues to improve. With this in mind, the question arises whether sex selection is ethical. Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, argues that sex selection is moral, based on his ethical principle of Procreative Beneficence: that “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” [Savulescu 1]. Savulescu claims

Although this may be the case in many areas of people’s lives today, it is not always beneficial, or necessary. People may have trouble deciding whether messing with human genes and cells is ethical. Designing the “perfect child” in many parent’s eyes becomes a harsh question of reality. The concept of a parent’s unconditional love for their child is questioned because of the desire to make their child perfect. If genetically engineering humans becomes a dominant medical option, people could have the chance to create their child however they like: from physical appearances, genetically enhanced genes, and the possibility to decide what a child thinks and acts, parents have access to designing their entire child. Naturally, people could be creating a super-human. Issues between different races, and eventually creating new prejudices against genetically engineered humans may increase. People may not realize how expensive genetic screening is at first. With only the rich being able to “enhance” their children, another social issue might occur, giving the world another type of people to outcast.

However, while all of these reasons might be valid to some parents, they are always people who oppose these modern technologies. Hilary Freeman disagrees. She feels parents would want to be able to choose merely for social reasons. Plus, she values the ideal that “babies are not commodities. They are not born to satisfy our desires or dreams and we cannot dispose of them if they don’t meet our requirements” (2). She feels that there is one and only one condition in which the parents should be able to choose; and this is on the basis of medicinal purposes. If the child is likely to inherit genes for a condition which is harmful to them such as hemophilia or muscular dystrophy. She also adds that wanting a balanced family is a shallow concept. She doesn’t agree with it, or see any value in it.