Advances in genetic engineering have made it possible to select and enhance a child’s genes, but this could threaten core values of human dignity and free will. Professor Michael Sandel argues that genetic engineering is an overreaching intervention that attempts to mold a child’s life to the parent’s intentions, which he characterizes as “transforming love” rather than “accepting love.” An ethical rethinking of genetic design is needed to preserve children’s freedom and inherent worth.

Introduction

Advances in biotechnology, especially genetic engineering, are making the previously impossible possible. The ability to manipulate and control human genes to create a desired human being or enhance certain traits is no longer a distant possibility. However, the humanistic basis for making ethical judgments surrounding these technologies has yet to be established.

Plot summary of The Case against Perfection

In The Case against Perfection, author Michael Sandel takes a neutral stance on the use of genetic engineering, neither fully in favor nor against. While Sandel is against parents designing their children’s genes, enhancing certain traits through genetic enhancement, and human cloning, he is in favor of genetic engineering for research and treatment for therapeutic purposes. His attitude is based on the core principle that “life” should be viewed as a gift. By “gift ethics,” he means a mindset that moves away from the Promethean desire to control and manipulate everything and embraces life as it is.
As Sandel notes, the line between genetic engineering and genetic enhancement is blurry. For example, one might be in favor of treating a fatal genetic disease, but opposed to genetic enhancement done simply for better physical traits. In some cases, however, these distinctions are difficult to draw, and Sandel urges us to think in terms of an ethic of “gift ethics,” rather than laws or institutions.
Let’s focus on Sandel’s argument in the context of parents genetically designing their children. Sandel points out that there are two aspects of parental love for children. These are “love of acceptance” and “love of transformation,” which correspond to the “ethic of acceptance as a gift” and “Promethean desire” mentioned earlier. Sandel argues that genetic engineering skews too heavily toward transformative love, which he sees as an ethical problem arising from the genetic design of children. Some might argue that there’s not much difference between high-pressure parental discipline or over-parenting and a child’s genetic design. Morally and ethically, there may not be much difference between the two. However, Sandel emphasizes that this does not justify the genetic design of children, but rather calls into question the high-pressure training and parenting that we have unconsciously accepted.

Is it right to genetically design your child?

Is it right for parents to genetically design their children? My opinion is that it is not. This sentence alone is enough to make many people cringe. Why do we feel uncomfortable with the idea of genetically designing our children? The reason is that genetic design threatens an important value: human dignity.
In simple terms, human dignity means that people deserve to be respected for who they are. There is no disagreement that human dignity is important and should be protected. However, some may question whether the genetic design of a child violates human dignity. For example, consider the value of “beauty”. People consider beauty to be an important value and strive for it. Some people feel that they are born with this value, while others acquire it through artificial means, such as plastic surgery. While plastic surgery can be debated for and against, when we focus on the value of “beauty” itself, it’s hard to see how it threatens it. As a result, the value of beauty is not threatened if one possesses beauty regardless of whether or not they have plastic surgery.
Similarly, if human dignity is to be respected for being human, then it should be preserved regardless of the process by which it was created, so the argument that genetic design is a threat to human dignity can be refuted. However, this position can be refuted by considering why the value of human dignity arose. Why should humans be respected, and what distinguishes humans from non-humans? I believe that what distinguishes humans from other beings is “free will”. While inanimate objects have no inherent principles of behavior, and non-human creatures act on instinct, humans have free will and can make their own decisions at every moment of choice. This is a key human characteristic, and human dignity stems from it.
Why is genetic design problematic from a free will perspective? In Sandel’s book, there is a case involving cat cloning. The owner hires a company to clone his deceased cat, Nicky, and is satisfied with the result: an identical cat. The story is simple, but it illustrates how human genetic design can violate free will. The owner expects the newly cloned Nicky to look exactly like the old Nicky, to have the same habits, and to behave similarly, reflecting the goal that the cloned Nicky should resemble the old Nicky rather than be respected as an individual. To extend this to human genetic design, when parents design their children, they do so with the intention that the child will have certain abilities, appearance, and personality traits, and that the child will fit into the future that the parents have planned. This purpose influences many of the choices that the child faces in the future, which means that the child’s free will has been violated.
Proponents of genetic design may question whether human dignity derives from free will. If dignity is derived from free will, then it should be possible to deprive a person of dignity in a vegetative state or other conditions in which there is no free will. But even in these cases, we instinctively feel that dignity should not be taken away. Why? In the case of vegetative humans, there is the possibility of regaining free will. They may not be able to make decisions at the moment and may only be biologically alive, but they may regain free will in the future. Furthermore, even in cases such as brain death, dignity is granted by social request. This is not the same as a human being with free will having dignity; a brain-dead person is unlikely to have free will in the future, but is respected as a human being regardless. If dignity were to be excluded, ethical issues would arise where human dignity could be disregarded. Therefore, society asks for dignity even in the absence of free will; it is respected by request, not necessity, and this is confirmed by the possibility of organ donation in the brain dead.

Conclusion

The genetic design of children harms the value of human dignity. Human beings have free will, which allows them to choose reason over instinct at every moment of choice, and should be respected for that alone. However, a child’s genetic design also affects their ability to exercise their free will, as parents can unduly interfere in all aspects of their lives, including their appearance, abilities, and personality. In Sandel’s words, there is a “transforming love” and an “accepting love” for children. Genetic design is an excessive manifestation of the desire to change the child, and is the result of excessive interference with the child’s free will. Therefore, I oppose genetic design of children.