If genetic modification makes ‘designer babies’ possible, is it morally justified? Michael Sandel’s book “The Case Against Perfection” explores human dignity and ethical boundaries.
Recent science and technology are advancing at an incredible pace. For these advanced technologies to be widely commercialized in society, ethical and social consensus is necessary. Among many scientific fields, biotechnology is one where ethical debates for and against never cease. The field of genetic modification, in particular, has become a frequent subject in films and various media. For example, the films ‘Gattaca’ and ‘The Island’, as well as the recently popular webtoon ‘No Named’, all address this theme. First, let’s assume that genetic modification is scientifically proven to be completely safe with absolutely no side effects. Then, is ‘designing children’ truly morally unproblematic? Michael Sandel discusses the ethical issues of ‘biotechnology’—that is, designing children—in his book ‘The Case Against Perfection’.
Sandel strongly rejected the idea of designing children in his work. He hoped parents would accept the child they are given as a ‘gift’ as they are, rather than seeking to conquer and control natural phenomena. This might sound religious at first glance, but it is not. Even without a religious focus, we express gratitude to a higher power, nature, or chance. For instance, athletes or musicians appreciate their innate talents, work hard, and inspire enthusiasm in others. The point is not a passive acceptance of religion, but to view the given life as a blessing and seek its meaning.
Theologian May noted that parental love has two aspects: accepting love and transforming love. Accepting love affirms the child’s existence, while transforming love pursues the child’s well-being. The ideal state is when both forms are balanced, but Sandel argues that today’s parents are overly biased toward the ‘transforming love’ aspect. This over-involvement, rooted in ‘transforming love,’ has ultimately led to designing children using genetic engineering. Some argue this is no different from the ‘eugenics’ of the world wars.
In response, others contend that ‘designing children’ is for the child’s benefit, not the parents’. Modern society is fiercely competitive. Those lacking the skills demanded by the times are inevitably left behind. Parents constantly live in anxiety, worrying whether their children might fall behind due to incompetence or be overlooked. The argument here is that providing children with a little genetic assistance makes it easier for them to adapt to society and increases their chances of success. Ultimately, genetic design is for the child’s benefit, not the parents’, and that becomes its purpose. In other words, genetic design is not parental overreach but a pure consideration for the child’s future.
However, we must reconsider whether this is truly solely for the child. When genetically designing a child, parents freely determine the child’s genes. One might argue that parents have the right to choose their child’s genes. Yet the child itself has no say in how it is born. This means the child is inevitably born to fulfill the parents’ desires.
The book’s introduction features a story about a lesbian couple. This visually impaired couple took pride in their disability and valued their unique community. Therefore, they manipulated genes for visual impairment to ensure their child could experience this, ultimately achieving pregnancy. This case raises a question: can gene design truly be called design for the child? While outwardly presented as being for the child, it ultimately serves the parents’ own interests and satisfaction.
Suppose there exists a ‘mountain of values,’ with the ultimate ‘intrinsic value’ each person pursues residing at its peak. There are likely many paths to reach this summit. Some may follow ridges, while others traverse valleys. We call the various paths needed to reach this ‘summit’ ‘instrumental values’. So, when parents climb their own ‘mountain of values’ to reach the summit, is ‘gene design’ truly the only path available to them? While challenging, there are many paths available: the path of devotion and attention poured into the child, the path of affection, and so on. There is no compelling reason to choose the ethically problematic path of ‘gene design’.
Those who counter this argue that genetic manipulation poses no ethical issues. In other words, they question what ethical difference there is between treating a sick child and genetically enhancing a healthy child. Consider one example: a child with abnormally short stature. This child receives socially permitted growth hormone injections and consistent treatment. Conversely, another child, though within the normal range, desires growth hormone injections because they perceive themselves as short. However, society does not permit this. In truth, distinguishing between these two is highly ambiguous. Whether something is normal or abnormal is not determined at birth but is a boundary set by social convention. In the sense that they create a better state than the current one, treatment and genetic enhancement are not fundamentally different. Therefore, the argument is that genetic enhancement, which makes good things better, poses no ethical problems and will benefit our lives.
In fact, it is difficult to draw a clear line between where treatment ends and genetic enhancement begins. However, this ambiguity does not mean that genetic enhancement is ethically unproblematic. Kant stated that a person must be an end in themselves, not a means to an end. This means that the subject of one’s life is oneself, and it is wrong to treat others or oneself as a means to something else. Reflecting on this, we can see that it is ethically problematic to treat ‘health’ as a means for greater gain, even when one falls within the normal range. Imagine a life where genetic enhancement is permitted. We would constantly be dissatisfied with our bodies and endlessly alter them for other purposes. Can such a future truly be called the society we dream of?
Opponents acknowledge that genetic manipulation also has side effects. This is evident in the excessive genetic manipulation we saw earlier and in the case of the lesbian couple. They argue that these issues can be sufficiently addressed through institutional safeguards. The idea is to establish the scope of genetic modification through social consensus and enjoy the benefits of the technology within these boundaries. Upon reflection, every scientific technology has a dark side alongside its bright aspects. If we refrain from using a technology out of fear of its side effects, despite its many potential advantages, there could be no greater loss. Setting appropriate boundaries under multiple criteria and thorough oversight, and utilizing the technology within these limits, would greatly benefit humanity. The view is that if institutional safeguards are put in place to prevent side effects, we can reap the benefits of genetic engineering technology.
We acknowledge that other scientific technologies are widely used in society despite their side effects. We continue to operate thermal power plants despite environmental concerns, and the same applies to nuclear power plants. However, genetic engineering technology differs from these technologies in one crucial aspect. The potential side effect of genetic manipulation is that it undermines ‘human dignity’. Unlike other scientific technologies, this technology is directly linked to ‘ethical issues’, necessitating more thorough scrutiny. So, can this technology be controlled through well-established and elaborate legal systems? Judging by history, perfect regulation is impossible. Our society has no reason to accept this technology while accepting the major side effect of undermining ‘human dignity’. Since regulation is an arbitrary promise made within that society, its boundaries are ambiguous and scientifically difficult to verify. It is, quite literally, merely a subjective promise. The idea that this system will be perfectly applied to our society is nothing more than a utopian notion.
Throughout human history, countless revolutions and immense efforts have been made to achieve the goal that ‘human beings are dignified.’ That is why we can now live in a society where ‘all humans are dignified.’ The Constitution of the Republic of Korea also states that all citizens are dignified. Paradoxically, seeking a better life through genetic manipulation technology always carries the underlying risk of undermining human dignity.
Is it truly acceptable to design children? Some argue that this technology is permissible for the sake of a child’s future or to secure a more comfortable life. They claim the benefits of this technology are solely for the children, not the parents. Like medical treatments, they say the future brought by genetic design is bright. However, I believe ‘child design’ is merely an extreme example of a parent’s ‘love that seeks to change’. Ultimately, ‘child design’ serves only parental satisfaction and amounts to nothing more than the instrumentalization of children. Human beings possess dignity and are ends in themselves; they must not become means. If the day ever comes when genes can be freely designed, that future will be one of darkness, not light.
