The Case Against Perfection By Michael J. Sandel

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.

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

I support the guidelines outlined by Kitcher for the use of genetic information because of their responsible and ethical nature. I believe that future generations will benefit as a direct consequence of these guidelines. I shall begin by defining eugenics as the study of human genetics to improve inherited characteristics of the human race by the means of controlled selective breeding.

Eugenics is defined, in some way or the other, as the process of reshaping the human race by determining the kinds of people who will be born. As such, there is much debate in the field of eugenics, with authors, like Philip Kitcher, who support laissez-faire or a minimalist approach of eugenics in which eugenic decision-making should be limited only to avoid neurological illnesses and in which parental free choice is valued. Gregory Stock’s essay, The Enhanced and Un-Enhanced, presents otherwise by supporting the position of maximalist eugenics, allowing individuals the full extent in the selection of genes. On the other hand, the film, Gattaca, raises major ethical problems by illustrating a dystopian society resulted by extensive

In the essay, titled "Building Baby from the Genes Up?" Ronald M. Green proclaims his approval of genetic selection and extraction of human genes. He gives reasons that support his outlook on the matter, that this will be useful to civilization. Ronald M. Green is in violation of several ethical codes, with his view on genetic modification. I am against genetically modified humans, and I will explain to you, why this is my stance on the subject. First, I will summarize exactly what Ronald M. Green says in his article about his view on genetic modification and why practicing it is vital. Second, I will describe research

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

The science of eugenics was widely used during the 20th century in the United States to strategically eliminate the reproductive rights of women who were deemed inferior on the social ladder (“What is Eugenics?”). Some women of color, women with disabilities, and women from lower financial classes were sterilized for permanent birth control, and sometimes without their consent or knowledge (“What is Eugenics?”). The eugenics movement was aimed to promote selective human features in order to increase those with intelligence, good health, physical characteristics, and class. Currently, the recent controversy of human genetic engineering has scientist concerned that it will become the new eugenics. Sterilizing women as a precaution to prevent the overpopulation of unfavorable offspring would go against Jonathan Swift’s equal treatment of all humans, Benjamin Franklin’s hopes for men to understand the value of humanity, and be a direct violation to the natural born rights of all humans. Therefore, the controversial practice of genetic modification to restrict reproduction rights only to people of desirable traits is unethical because it promotes racial cleansing.

In the essay “The Case against Perfection,” by Michael Sandel he discusses the issue that our society has with genetic enhancements. Genetic enhancements include steroids and genetically enhanced muscles. He says that our society praises those who do well athletically when it involves disciplined training and effort, but if someone is to do well and it’s because of genetic enhancements or steroids we look down on the person and look at the drug they are using. Sandel states that “the problem is not the drift to mechanism but the drive to mastery.” With that I believe he means the problem is not that we strive to be better but we strive for perfection and will stop at nothing to reach that goal. Admiration comes so much easier for those who are talented by dedication, hard work and natural talent because we want to praise those that work for what they have.

Who would have ever thought we could live in a world that can make genetically modified humans; some think the idea of genetically modified food is absurd. According to the encyclopedia, “Eugenics is the conviction and practice of enhancing the hereditary nature of the human population”. In our modern world, eugenics has become a center of conversation because of its numerous progressive usages, but also its probable consequences. Some believe it is the future of our world, some believe it will do more harm than good. With this proclamation, there is no uncertainty that it will be tremendously helpful in the use of preventing diseases such as cancer and countless more, before we are even outside the womb. However this idea can also be mistreated

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,

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,

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.

Genetic engineering has become increasingly normalized in today’s society, and people are exposed to this technology now more than ever before. Most people are aware that food companies practice genetic engineering on their plants in order to design the most profitable crops, but it isn’t generally known that this same technology can be applied to humans. The concept of picking certain traits and characteristics of a human may appear desirable, but many risks and potential side effects may follow considering that it is unknown what genetic engineering could affect in future generations. Francis Fukuyama, an accomplished and distinguished professor of political economy and philosopher, conveys his concern that genetic engineering is developing at a surprisingly rapid rate. Within his book, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, he claims that genetic engineering not only will potentially be detrimental for the human race, but due to the change in nature of human beings, such engineering will also result in significantly impacting government and politics. Although genetic engineering can be seen as a huge technological advancement that could potentially help millions, there are drastic negative effects and reasons for disapproving genetic engineering that are too important to be overlooked.

On the most surface level, human genetic engineering and human genetic modification are a new and rapidly developing field of science that deals with directly altering the DNA (genetic makeup) of a living human cell. From early science fiction to the present day, taking control of humans’ gen es and directing the flow of evolution has been a subject of debate for many people. Human genetic engineering or HGE tends to bring up thoughts of dystopian futures where altering DNA has unexpectedly resulted in horrible mutant humans that can’t survive and thus the human race perishes, but this is not necessarily the outcome. Since genetic engineering is an emerging field of science, there are still many moral and ethical issues that need to be addressed before continuing research. Atheists and theists both have valid reasons to support / resist the continuation of this field of science. For the purpose of this paper, it will be assumed the reader has a reasonable understanding of the terms atheism, theism, DNA, genes, genome, and how a persons DNA (their genotype) essentially dictates the physical appearance and abilities that person portrays (their phenotype).