Genetic Enhancement In Michael Sandel's The Case Against Perfection

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.

Genetic Modification is often perceived as the answer to humanity’s faults because it will enhance human abilities, prevent the survival of incapacitating disabilities, and guide the innovation of the future. Sounds pretty good, right? That is not the reality. Genetic modification is not the solution to the ubiquitous problems of the human race, but rather infringes on individual rights, decreases diversity, permits too much power to the human race, and contributes to overpopulation.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.