Michael Sandel’s Bioethics analyzes how genetic manipulation and over-education exacerbate children’s well-being and ethical problems, and argues that parents should view their children as a gift.
The Ethics of Bioethics is a book by Michael Sandel, who became famous in Korea for his book What is Justice, and expresses his opposition to the practice of altering children’s traits through genetic engineering and high-pressure education. In the book, the author argues that changing a child’s traits through genetic manipulation or high-pressure education caused by parents’ overzealousness is no different and should be avoided. In other words, a child is a gift to parents and should not be considered as an object to be designed.
This book addresses the emerging bioethical issues in contemporary society and offers readers a deeply thought-provoking read. Sandel raises philosophical questions about human life and values, and invites readers to look at bioethical issues from a broader perspective than just the pro and con arguments. In order to understand the book’s themes, it is first necessary to examine the basic concepts of bioethics and the social and moral implications of advances in genetic engineering.
The author’s main argument is that children should not be considered as objects to be designed. He further argues that over-educating children is tantamount to eugenics, and that this misses the point of life as a gift. The first argument is that there is an inherent moral objection to genetic enhancement. According to him, the moral objection arises because genetic enhancement technologies seek perfection. After all, genetic enhancement, or medical technology, is not used to restore natural human functions. The dictionary definition of the word medical is the practice of medicine to treat human disease. Using medical technology to improve your child’s genetic traits means that you are treating your child’s “less desirable traits” as a disease. Can we consider a naturally occurring trait in our children that does not interfere with their ability to live as a disease? The answer is probably no. And I’m not just talking in moral terms. First, if we start to consider it a disease, then the entire human race suffers from at least one disease.
Secondly, he argues that those who take the opposite position are more likely to be persuasive if their arguments are based on utilitarian ideas. In utilitarian thought, health is like a resource, a means to maximize happiness and well-being that should be available when needed. Opponents of the author’s view justify genetic manipulation by arguing that healing and enhancement are not the same thing. However, as mentioned in the paragraph above, healing and enhancement are two different things. Medical practice in hospitals is never aimed at strengthening, and patients are discharged in stages once a certain level of healing has been achieved. If health is on a scale of 1 to 100, being above 70 doesn’t have much of an impact on happiness and well-being, in which case the factors that affect happiness and well-being are external to health. However, utilitarianism says that health should always converge to 100, and genetic manipulation is just another step in the process of getting health to 100. Not only is it impossible to bring a child’s health to 100 by genetic manipulation, but enhancing a trait that people perceive as relatively inferior with a better trait does not make them healthier.
Finally, he argues that genetic manipulation is just a shortcut to eugenics, which will make many children suffer. He specifically cites the high number of adolescents who are injured due to over-exercising, often at the behest of their parents. Seventy percent of young patients are injured due to over-exercise, a figure that has risen sevenfold in 25 years. It could be argued that sports are just one example of overtraining. However, extreme results are seen in isolated examples, and if we extend this to the whole spectrum, we can infer that over-training by parents will have adverse consequences for their children.
Furthermore, this problem is not limited to sports. Overtraining has a negative impact not only on academic performance, but also on psychological well-being. When children are forced to overtrain in order to improve their academic performance, they”re bound to feel a great deal of mental strain along with academic stress. This, in turn, can lead to low motivation and psychological problems. Excessive expectations and pressure from parents can be frustrating and lead to low self-esteem.
The most important thing you should care about is your child’s happiness. It’s clear that you should provide the resources, time, opportunities, and support necessary for your child’s happiness. However, changing your child’s traits through genetic manipulation is not the way to go. With the unhappiness of children due to the excessive greed of their parents being a social issue in the modern world, we want to ask whether genetic modification can make them happier.
Opponents of the author’s argument will argue that if genetic manipulation can make children happier, then it can be justified. They will also argue that healing and enhancement should not be seen as a dichotomy, but rather as a matter of degree. Finally, it could be argued that the ethical issues that arise around genetic manipulation stem from people’s misconceptions and need to be overcome. However, I would like to ask the opposite question: do the ends justify the means? It would be very harsh from the child’s point of view to evaluate their happiness based only on the outcome. First of all, it’s unclear how to measure the difference between a child’s happiness without genetic enhancement and their happiness after genetic enhancement. Even if we could, it would be difficult to find a meaningful difference in happiness, and in some cases, genetic enhancement would take away from the child’s happiness. In other words, genetic enhancement does not guarantee better happiness for the child. Also, in response to the argument that healing and enrichment shouldn’t be considered dichotomous, I would say that they should be. As I mentioned earlier, healing and enrichment are separate and distinct. Healing is the act of restoring a certain level of health, while strengthening is the act of making a trait more perfect. A more perfect trait is undefinable and cannot be substituted for health. Finally, I would like to refute those who argue that genetic enhancement is ethically unproblematic. As the authors point out, moral opposition to genetic manipulation is not a modern phenomenon; it is one of the traits we have acquired as a species that is constantly evolving. To deny this is to deny human evolution.
Therefore, we should not view this problem as simply a product of scientific progress. Scientific progress does not necessarily coincide with human happiness, and it is dangerous to pursue progress without ethical considerations. Parents’ love and care for their children is understandable, but we must be careful not to misdirect that love. True love is about honoring children’s individuality and helping them live their own lives. That’s the true role of parents, not genetic manipulation, but helping children realize their full potential.
