Sandel: The Case Against Perfection Case Study

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.

Sandel does a wonderful job of refuting many of the common arguments against genetic enhancement before presenting us with his own case which revolves around three negative outcomes he thinks will come as a result of human genetic enhancement. Sandel argues that the first negative outcome, is a severe reduction in human humility, which he claims is necessary human emotion. He argues against what he calls “the drive to mastery” (27); since we would have complete control over our genetic makeup, and could manipulate it to our liking, we would no longer have to be grateful to some higher power

Savulescu in "Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement" suggests that we have an obligation to enhance. His core argument can be interpreted as threefold: The right thing to do to enhance, the consistency that comes with the enhancement, and there is no difference between enhancement and treating diseases.

Technology is developing every day. The automobile was revolutionary, and then they introduced the plane. Cell phones can connect us with people around the world. Self-driving cars are in development today! Revolutionary inventions are the expectation nowadays, but a new discovery is sparking controversial questions in the science world. Is it acceptable to alter a baby’s genes to make it a better human? Genes are the instruction book of the body, and they determine everyone’s attributes and how people act in their environment (Medical News Today). Some people say that everyone is different for a reason, and others think customizing the genes of children was meant to happen. Altering an infant’s genes is acceptable to prevent hereditary diseases, but the line should be drawn at making an artificially smarter, stronger, or prettier human.

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.

The morality of genetic enhancement (GE) differs from person to person. The stance Michael J. Sandel’s takes is that eugenics and GE has no morality. He states in his work, “The case against Perfection”, that manipulating ones genes makes one less human; since, humans are not perfect which is what makes one human and by designing a perfect person one is taking away their humanity. He thinks eugenics are morally problematic in the cases of abortion; in which the mother would be free to determine if she would like to abort the baby by looking at its genes for illnesses, physical appearance and sex, this would test and even change ones moral values. Sandel is opposed on the quest of perfection due to the fact that one is not looking at the big picture, human life is a precious gift. He argues that one’s faults and quirks are what makes one unique from the other seven billion people on earth. And if one takes away what makes one who they are and becomes the perfect person there will be no originality since many would want to also become perfect. Imagine how many parents would want their child to become the next Einstein or Shakespeare. The freedom to become one’s own person would be taken away. For example, a boy that was GE to love soccer and no other sport and a boy that gets to pursue whatever he chooses, the other boy never had the opportunity or liberty to choose what sport he would like he was programed to love soccer for the rest of

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

Julian Savulescu wrote Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings and in this article he clearly states his position on the issues as well as providing supporting and opposing sides to the matter. He starts off by explaining this issue is focused on biological enhancement and more specifically genetic enhancement. Then the thesis statement is provided, “I want to argue that, far from it’s being merely permissible, we have a moral obligation or moral reason to enhance ourselves and our

If true equality can never fully excist than genetic engineering or biotechnological enhancements for the ungifted is unnecessary because it is impossible to make everyone equal. If it was possible we would end up in the same place as the characters in Harrison Bergeron. which was not a society of where everyone was equal. One can argue the positives and negatives of using science to change the ungifted but it all comes down to why do it? To make them feel more equal? Than you have to ask, Equal to

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

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,

My first argument against Genetic enhancement is about the safety of the technology used. Is it safe to use? There are several safety concerns about the technology, all of which lie within the physical alteration of the gene. Genes are very specific and will only work correctly in certain ways. Although scientists may know a fair deal about genes, do they know about the consequences if their technology were to fail? One of the risks directly involved with their technology is the technique of introducing a gene at a random place in the genome. By doing this the gene could interrupt another sequence of genes that are vital for survival. It could also alter the effect that the gene has. The gene might have the effect wanted, such as an increased intellect, but it may also introduce an unwanted effect. This became apparent in 2001 when Joe Tsien genetically altered mice to have a high memory capacity. The mice were able to learn very quickly and were able to retain more information but at what cost? The mice also had an extremely high sensitivity to pain: something that a human being wouldn’t be able to live with. Do you think that’s fair? Would you be willing to sacrifice your quality of life for an enhanced learning capacity? I know I wouldn’t. But what is more unfair is that the embryos, who are the ones who are going to be enhanced, don’t have a choice in the matter. What about the children’s

First of all, genetic engineering is simply a way of altering oneself. The enhancement may bring great skills to have, but unfortunately this is not only changing the child’s mind completely, it is also giving them no self-actualization ability. I agree with Baylis and Robert’s idea of, “Enhancement technologies having a deleterious impact on the genetic variability characteristic of the human gene pool” (Baylis and Robert) because every human is different and unique in many aspects. This process literally weakens the authenticity of one’s accomplishments and diversity throughout society. It holds that the engineered person’s abilities and talents are no longer his or her own, but are simply because of the alteration. Children are supposed to be different in order to find their struggles and strengths, building themselves. If they are accelerated in everything possible, they will never find their paths in life. According to Baylis and Robert, “The essence of humans is to nurture and protect the natural