Through Michael Sandel’s ‘The Ethics of Life’, we explore the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering and human enhancement, examining the values of fairness and dignity.
The Antarctic expedition team of renowned scholar Charles Wells discovers traces of a 17-meter giant during their exploration and finds evidence of a civilization more advanced than our own. Meanwhile, his son David Wells and researchers including Aurore Caméra feel that human evolution is necessary to prevent humanity’s extinction and create a new human species, ‘Emashu,’ through genetic manipulation. This is the plot of Bernard Werber’s recently popular novel, ‘The Third Humanity’. Not only ‘The Third Humanity’, but many science fiction novels explore the theme of enhancement through genetic engineering and genetic manipulation. However, as advances in genetic engineering bring these scenarios closer to reality rather than fiction, genetic manipulation has encountered numerous ethical issues.
Michael Sandel discusses ‘enhancement’ through genetic engineering in his book. Genetic enhancement refers to the practice of improving innate abilities or qualities through the development of gene-editing technology. This article addresses whether it is right for parents to arbitrarily select or manipulate their children’s genes to design their abilities, talents, or traits. Sandel opposes genetic enhancement, but argues that the commonly used arguments against genetic engineering—such as autonomy or fairness—do not constitute definitive counterarguments. He contends that genetic enhancement does not infringe on autonomy because children cannot choose their fundamental characteristics even without parental intervention. Furthermore, he argues that since natural inequalities among individuals are not considered problematic, inequalities resulting from genetic enhancement should not be either. For example, just as we do not consider it unfair in sports competitions that some athletes possess exceptional natural gifts.
Sandel contends that the fundamental problem lies in humanity’s pursuit of perfection through genetic engineering. He argues that parents should recognize their children’s abilities or qualities as ‘gifts bestowed’ and should not seek to control them perfectly. He argues that if genetic engineering allows us to obtain abilities or qualities at will, they lose their value. This is because talent is no longer earned through effort but manufactured through genetic engineering. Consequently, humans need not be humble about such manufactured abilities, and society feels no responsibility for an individual’s life because ‘the parents made the child.’ This leads to the disappearance of humility and social solidarity within human society.
Like Michael Sandel, I oppose the argument that parents should be allowed to design their children. However, unlike Sandel, I believe the primary reason genetic enhancement is wrong is fairness. Sandel argues that since natural inequality is not problematic, genetic inequality should not be either. Yet this argument overlooks the fact that humans are born equal. Observing specific fields reveals that while individuals naturally differ in ability, each possesses innate talent in distinct areas. Michael Jordan demonstrated superior basketball talent from a young age compared to me, just as I possess greater mathematical talent than him. Viewed holistically, human capabilities and qualities can be considered equal. This perspective reveals the inherent problems with genetic enhancement. Genetic enhancement can be said to be fundamentally unfair when viewed from a broader perspective.
Sandel argued that opposing genetic enhancement on grounds of fairness is consequentialism. He contended that to find the fundamental reason why genetic enhancement is objectionable, we must first set aside the outcomes. I believe that if the outcomes are anticipated to be unfavorable, a compelling counterargument can be made. Of course, judging right and wrong solely by outcomes risks falling into eugenics. But let’s consider the issue at hand: fairness. Sandel acknowledged that poor people have less access to genetic enhancement than the wealthy, but argued this has no bearing on its moral objectionability. I see the difference from eugenics as being that the outcome itself—that the poor could be excluded from the benefits of biotechnology due to genetic enhancement—is morally objectionable. While Sandel sought the fundamental reason why genetic enhancement is morally objectionable, my purpose is to defend the opposing position, so I believe this outcome can serve as sufficient grounds for rebuttal.
In fact, I agree with the logic Michael Sandel used to refute the pro-enhancement position in his book ‘The Ethics of Life,’ and I believe his logic alone suffices to refute all common pro-enhancement arguments. However, I wrote this piece partially refuting Sandel’s views because I considered fairness—which his logic excluded—to be the most crucial reason for opposition. He argued that natural inequalities exist in specific domains, and since right and wrong cannot be judged solely by outcomes, we must seek reasons for moral repugnance. However, I contend that from a holistic perspective, humans are equal in innate talent, and the outcomes themselves can sufficiently serve as grounds for moral repugnance.
