Discusses the moral aspects of designing children, centering on the ethical issues of genetic manipulation. It introduces various opinions on whether it is for the benefit of the child, not the parents’ desires, and whether it does not violate human dignity.
In recent years, science and technology have been advancing at a tremendous rate. In order for these advances to be widely commercialized in society, ethical and social consensus is needed. Biotechnology is one of the most ethically controversial areas of science and technology. The field of genetic modification in particular has been the subject of many movies and other media. For example, the movies “Gattaca” and “Island” and the webtoon “No Named”, which I recently watched, deal with this topic. First of all, let’s assume that genetic manipulation is completely scientifically proven and has no side effects. Is it really morally acceptable to “design your child”? In his book The Case Against Perfection, Michael Sendel discusses the ethical issues of “biotechnology,” or child design.
In his book, Sendel strongly rejects the idea of designing children. He wants parents to accept the child as a “gift” rather than trying to conquer and control a natural phenomenon. This may sound religious, but it’s not at all. We give thanks to God, nature, or chance without necessarily being religious. Athletes and musicians, for example, are grateful for their natural talent and work hard, and people around them are enthusiastic about it. The idea is not to be passive in our religious acceptance, but to see life as a blessing and find meaning in it.
According to theologian Mei, there are two aspects of parental love: accepting love and transforming love: accepting love affirms the existence of the child, and transforming love seeks the child’s welfare. In an ideal world, both forms of love are in balance, but Sendel says parents are currently overly skewed toward transforming love. This skew toward transformative love has led to over-intervention, which in turn has led to the use of genetic engineering to design children. This, he argues, is not unlike the “eugenics” of World War II.
Some argue that “designing children” is for the benefit of the child and not for the benefit of the parents. The modern world is a fiercely competitive society, and if you don’t have what it takes, you’re out. Parents live in constant fear that their children will be left behind or ignored because they are incompetent. The idea here is that giving your child a little genetic help will make it easier for them to adapt to society and increase their chances of success. In the end, genetic design is for the benefit of the child, not the parent, and that is its purpose. In other words, genetic design is not about parental overreach, but about the future of the child.
However, it’s important to think twice about whether or not it’s solely for the benefit of the child. When genetically designing a child, parents are free to decide what their child’s genes will be. In a way, you might think that parents have the right to choose their child’s genes. But in reality, the child does not have a choice in how he or she is born. This means that children are born to fulfill the desires of their parents.
In the introduction to this book, there is a story about a lesbian couple. The lesbian couple, who are blind, are proud of their disability and value their community. So they engineered a gene for blindness so that their child would have this experience, and eventually became pregnant. This story raises a question: is genetic design really design for the good of the child? It is ostensibly for the good of the child, but in the end, it is for the benefit and satisfaction of the parents themselves.
Imagine there is a mountain of values, and at the top is the “intrinsic value” that each of us ultimately strives for. There are many ways to climb to the top. Some follow the ridge, others follow the valley. The different paths needed to get to this ‘summit’ are what we call ‘instrumental values’. So when parents are trying to climb their own “mountain of values” to the top, is the only path available to them the path of “genetic design”? There are plenty of other paths to take, such as the path of love, attention, and affection, which may be difficult, but there is no reason to choose the ethically problematic path of genetic design.
The counterargument is that genetic manipulation is not ethically problematic. In other words, what is the ethical difference between treating a sick child and genetically enhancing a normal child? One example is a child with abnormally short stature, who is socially acceptable to receive growth hormone injections and is treated consistently. On the other hand, another child is in the normal range but thinks he is short and wants to receive growth hormone injections. However, this is not socially acceptable. In fact, the distinction between the two is very blurry. Normal or abnormal is not something you are born with, it’s something that is set by social contract. In the sense of making something better than it is, therapy and genetic enhancement are not different. So there is no ethical problem with genetic enhancement that makes a good thing better, and it will help us in our lives.
In fact, it’s hard to tell where it ends and genetic enhancement begins. However, this ambiguity doesn’t mean that genetic enhancement is not ethically problematic. Kant said that a person should be an end, not a means, and that it is wrong to use others or oneself as a means to an end. In light of this, we can see that it is ethically problematic to consider “health” as a means to a greater end, even if you are in the normal category. Imagine a life where genetic enhancement is allowed. We would be constantly dissatisfied with our bodies and constantly altering them for different purposes. Is this really the society we dream of?
Opponents acknowledge that genetic modification has side effects. This is true in the case of the lesbian couple, as well as in the case of the overly excessive genetic modification we saw earlier. They argue that this can be compensated for institutionally. The idea is to have a socially agreed-upon scope for genetic modification and to reap the benefits of the technology within that scope. If you think about it, any technology has a dark side for every bright side. It would be a great loss if, despite the many benefits of the technology, we do not use it because we are afraid of the side effects. If we set the appropriate level of categorization and use the technology within the appropriate level of oversight, with a number of standards and strict controls, it will be of great benefit to humanity. It is my opinion that genetically engineered technologies can also benefit from institutional safeguards to prevent side effects.
I recognize that other technologies are widely accepted in society despite their side effects. Thermal power plants continue to run despite environmental concerns, and the same goes for nuclear power plants. However, genetic modification is different from these technologies. One of the side effects of genetic modification is that it undermines human dignity. Unlike other technologies, this one is directly related to ethical issues and requires a more thorough review. So, can we control this technology through a well-designed and crafted legal system? If history is any indication, perfect regulation is impossible. There is no reason for society to embrace this technology at the expense of a major side effect of diminishing human dignity. Regulation is an arbitrary promise made by society, and its boundaries are fuzzy and hard to verify scientifically. It is literally a subjective promise, and the idea that it will work perfectly in our society is utopian.
If you look at the history of humanity, there have been many revolutions and many efforts to achieve the goal of “human dignity,” which is why we are now living in a society where all human beings are dignified. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea also mentions that all citizens are dignified. The desire to lead a better life through genetic engineering is paradoxically always based on the risk of breaking human dignity.
Should we design our children? Some say it’s okay to do it for the sake of your child’s future, to make life a little easier. The benefits of this technology are solely for the benefit of the children, not the parents. The future is bright for genetically engineered designs, such as medical treatments. However, I believe that “child design” is only an extreme example of parental “transformative love.” “Child design” is ultimately about parental gratification and the instrumentalization of children. Human beings are dignified and should be an end in themselves, not a means to an end. If the day comes when genes are designed at will, it will be a dark future, not a bright one.
