After Charles Welles’ Antarctic expedition discovers traces of giants, his son and researchers use genetic engineering to create a new human race, the Emache. This raises questions about the ethics and fairness of genetic engineering, and Michael Sandel argues against genetic enhancement. While I agree with Sandel’s view, I argue that fairness is a more important argument against it.
Charles Wells’ Antarctic expedition discovers traces of a 17-meter giant and discovers a civilization more advanced than our own. Meanwhile, researchers including his son David Wells and Auror Cameron feel that human evolution is necessary to prevent the extinction of the human race, so they genetically engineer a new species, the Emache. This is the plot of Bernard Berber’s ‘ The Third Man ‘, which has recently become popular. Many science fiction novels, including ‘ The Third Man,’ deal with the theme of genetic engineering and enhancement through genetic manipulation. However, as advances in genetic engineering make these things more realistic than science fiction, genetic manipulation raises many ethical issues.
In his book, Michael Sandel talks about “enhancement” through genetic engineering. Genetic enhancement is the enhancement of a person’s natural abilities or qualities through the development of technologies that manipulate genes. This article discusses whether it’s right for parents to select or manipulate their children’s genes to design their children’s abilities, talents, and traits. Sandel argues against genetic enhancement, but he argues that autonomy and fairness, which are often used as arguments against genetic engineering, are not strong arguments. He argues that genetic enhancement does not violate autonomy because children cannot choose their underlying traits on their own, even without parental intervention. Furthermore, he argues that since we don’t address the natural inequality of individuals, we can’t address the inequality caused by genetic enhancement. For example, in sports, we don’t criticize some athletes for being unfair to others.
Sandel argues that the fundamental problem is that we are using genetic engineering to make humans perfect. He argues that a child’s abilities or qualities should be recognized as “gifts” and that parents shouldn’t try to control them completely. Genetic engineering, he says, devalues abilities and qualities if they can be acquired at will. This is because talents are no longer acquired through hard work, but are created through genetic engineering, and humans do not have to be humble about their created abilities, and society does not feel any responsibility for the individual’s life because “parents made them,” thus removing any sense of humility or social solidarity from human society.
Like Michael Sandel, I disagree with the idea that parents should be allowed to design their children. However, unlike Sandel, I believe that the main reason genetic enhancement is wrong is fairness. Sandel argues that since natural inequality is not a problem, genetic inequality is not a problem, but this argument overlooks the fact that humans are born equal. We all have individual differences in ability, but we all have different areas in which we are naturally gifted. Michael Jordan may have been more talented at basketball than I am, but I’m more talented at math than he is, so overall, we’re all equal in our abilities and qualities. Then you can see the problem with genetic enhancement. We can say that genetic enhancement is not fair enough in the grand scheme of things.
Sandel’s objection to genetic enhancement on the grounds of fairness is consequentialism. He argues that in order to find the underlying reason why genetic enhancement is unwanted, we need to exclude consequences, which I think is a strong argument if the outcome is predicted to be unfavorable. Of course, if we look at outcomes alone, we can easily fall into the trap of eugenics, but let’s think about fairness, which is the thesis here. Although Sandel acknowledged that poor people have less access to genetic enhancement than wealthy people, he argued that this has nothing to do with being morally objectionable. In my view, the difference with eugenics is that the consequence of genetic enhancement, that poor people may be excluded from the benefits of biotechnology, is itself morally objectionable. While Sandel sought to find the underlying reasons why genetic enhancement is morally objectionable, I believe that these results can be used as a sufficient basis for rebuttal, since my purpose is to defend an opposing position.
In fact, I agree with the logic with which Michael Sandel refutes the pro-enhancement position in his book ‘ The Ethics of Life,’ and I believe that his logic alone is sufficient to refute the general pro-enhancement position. However, I find the most important objection to Sandel’s argument to be fairness, which is absent from his logic, and that is why I have written a partial rebuttal of his argument. He argues that there are natural inequalities in certain fields, and that we cannot judge right and wrong based on outcomes alone, so we need to find reasons for moral reluctance. However, I argue that in the big picture, humans are equal in their natural talents, and that outcomes are a sufficient reason for moral objection.
