Genetic modification offers new opportunities for humanity, but it also raises moral and ethical issues. We will examine the ethics of this technology through the debate over whether genetic modification violates free will and parental responsibility.
Technological advancements bring new opportunities to humanity, but they also create new problems. It also changes moral conventions. After decades of disagreement over many ethical issues, genetic engineering and other new technologies raise questions about the limits of morality. In Bioethics, Michael Sandel offers a new perspective, arguing that the immorality of genetic engineering goes deeper than the issues currently being raised. While proponents of genetic engineering argue that the child has no choice at any stage, we must look at the differences that occur in each situation. These differences make genetic manipulation an interference with free will.
Many arguments have been made on both sides of the debate about the safety and morality of genetic engineering, and Sandel, as a proponent, offers a counterargument to those who oppose it. It’s inevitable to mention human free will, and many opponents will attack the immoral aspect of custom babies, arguing that manipulating a life’s genes through an artificial process undermines the dignity and human rights of a custom baby. But Sandel argues that babies don’t have a choice whether they are born artificially or naturally. The only difference between the two is whether the parents chose to have them or whether they were born naturally. Most pro-choice advocates argue that just as overprotection can take away a child’s right to choose by interfering too much with their privacy, so too can genetic modification. They argue that overprotection and genetic modification are similar in this way and therefore ethical. However, opponents argue that overprotection itself is unethical. Free will is very important and cannot be ignored.
First, the author argues that the baby had no choice about being manipulated by the parents, so free will is irrelevant. The child is too young to make a choice at that stage, he says. Therefore, they argue that parents manipulating a child’s genes does not take away the child’s right to choose. Even without manipulation, nature would select the genes, and the child would still have no choice. Therefore, they argue, the baby is not the one who chooses the genes, whether nature or the parents, and the parents are not violating the child’s right to choose. For example, in a card game, having a friend choose your hand is the same as choosing your own. In both cases, the cards are already randomized, and it doesn’t matter who chooses them.
However, there is an important difference between the two cases. Unless the parents choose to genetically engineer their child, they will inherit the genetic material naturally, so they cannot be held responsible if the child is born with an incurable disease. However, if they choose to do so, they will expect their opinions and tastes to be passed on to the baby. Therefore, the future of the child is in the hands of the parents, and they are responsible for all possible after-effects of genetic modification. For example, if a parent manipulates a gene and the child later develops health problems, or if the child makes a mistake and gets into an accident, it can be assumed that it was caused by genetic manipulation. Of course, in reality, even if your child makes a mistake, it’s not due to genetic modification, but you may feel this pressure because you think it is. If nature selected the genes, no one can be blamed, but since the parents interfered with free will by manipulating them, they can be blamed. Even if there are no after-effects of genetic manipulation, the moment a parent manipulates a gene, it sets the direction of the child’s future expectations. Even as the child grows up, the parents will continue to interfere with the child’s choices because they will continue to push the child in the direction of their expectations. Therefore, it is important to recognize that parental choice is not the same as natural choice when it comes to pre-birth disease detection and other conditions of a personalized baby. Going back to the card game example, even if the card that is dealt does not depend on the person who chooses it, if a winning card is dealt, the person who chooses the card wins the prize.
Overprotectiveness is often characterized by severe interference in a child’s privacy and the elimination of choices. Even without genetic manipulation, many parents have ideas or sayings about their child’s future, and they interfere with free will in many ways by emphasizing how they want their child to live. For example, it is overprotective to force a child to study not only in school, but also in language or math or science classes, or to find a teacher to learn a musical instrument. Therefore, it is often argued that overprotection is no different from genetic modification in terms of interfering with free will. They say that there is no difference between parental overprotection and genetic modification.
However, overprotection itself is unethical. No matter how many parents choose to raise their children in this dictatorial way, it’s not immoral. Children are human beings, and we can’t ignore their choices, and it’s not right to force them to learn. Even if overprotectiveness is ethical, if you look at the differences, overprotectiveness is very intrusive, but the child is allowed to have some opinions. A genetically engineered child would have their opinions and choices completely ignored. For example, parents expect their children to become doctors, so they can always resist, no matter how much they force their education, and in the extreme case of a parent forcing a child into a career they want, the child is free to resist and not follow through. Thus, overprotection can be seen as a personal choice that can be modified by the child, and the parent can be seen as providing favorable conditions for the child’s success. However, with genetic engineering, the concept of free will cannot exist because the child cannot choose. For example, if a parent selects a gene for yellow hair and the child grows up to say that he or she prefers brown hair, the parent would be responsible. Or if a gene for short stature is selected and the child grows up to be a poor basketball player because of it. Therefore, we can say that genetically modified children are forever indebted to their parents.
We have reviewed many arguments in favor and against genetic engineering. Although it”s often argued that the topic of free will isn”t relevant to genetic engineering, in many cases, it does interfere with free will, as it often violates the right to choose. Therefore, we can conclude that genetic engineering is unethical. Genes cannot be manipulated without violating free will.
