This blog post examines the rights and ethical issues surrounding genetic design, analyzing through various perspectives how far parental decisions can be justified.
Michael Sandel argues in ‘The Ethics of Life’ that even if genetically possible, parents should not design their children. Sandel contends that genetic enhancement could lead to eugenics-like problems of determining the superiority or inferiority of specific traits, which he believes causes various moral issues, including the weakening of solidarity. His logic is that if design succeeds, children’s achievements would be composed solely of parental choices and individual effort, leading to the disappearance of humility and the weakening of community. However, parents possess a clear right to design their children, and the social problems feared by opponents like Sandel may not actually materialize. Therefore, the position that parents can design their children must be considered.
Parents have the right to design their children. Parents have a duty to raise their children, and this duty necessarily includes corresponding rights. Parenting extends beyond merely aiding physical growth; it encompasses the process of educating children so they can fulfill their roles as members of society upon reaching adulthood. Choosing what education to provide is part of the parental right to raise their children. In South Korea, many parents provide various early education programs like music and foreign languages, and utilize private tutoring alongside public education. The South Korean government does not prohibit this because parents have the freedom to educate their children. By the same logic, designing to enhance specific traits to help a child’s future can be seen as an extension of education and interpreted as falling within parental rights.
Opponents argue that parental design infringes on the child’s freedom. For example, if someone forced a friend to take a specific medication solely because it’s supposedly healthy, this would be condemned as coercion disregarding another’s will. Opponents view design in the same light: an act where parents impose their will on their child. That is, parents unilaterally made a genetic choice regardless of whether the child desired that specific trait.
However, the relationship between parents and children cannot be treated identically to that between adults. The concept of coercion presented by opponents may apply to two adults with rational judgment capabilities, but it is difficult to apply directly to minors. Minors lack the social experience and knowledge to make rational judgments at the same level as adults. For this reason, even the fundamental political right of suffrage is not granted to minors in South Korea. Therefore, when a child is inherently incapable of making a rational choice, a parent’s decision cannot be viewed as coercion. Rather, it is reasonable for parents, as the legal representatives of minors, to make rational decisions on their children’s behalf. Design is also a rational decision parents can make for their children’s future.
Opponents emphasize that parental decisions also have limitations. First, when the outcome of the decision is irreversible. For instance, if parents force plastic surgery on a young child, they face social condemnation because the child cannot reverse it even as an adult. Second, when the decision reduces the child’s future possibilities. For example, if parents do not send their child to elementary school, the child misses compulsory education and loses the opportunity for higher education, leading to legal punishment for the parents. Opponents argue that genetic design is irreversible like cosmetic surgery and that enhancing specific traits limits a child’s career choices.
However, the irreversibility of genetic traits applies regardless of whether design is involved. Children inherit irreversible traits from their parents even without design. Therefore, opponents’ first argument cannot be limited solely to design. The argument concerning the range of choices can be analyzed in the same way. First, consider cases where parents enhance only specific traits. Opponents argue this limits children’s career paths, yet geniuses with outstanding innate traits exist without design, and South Korea does not condemn them. Thus, opponents’ second argument is also difficult to apply solely to design. Second, when parents enhance multiple traits in a balanced manner, this does not restrict children’s career paths but rather broadens their options. This is because it can reduce situations where self-realization becomes difficult due to a lack of innate talent. Therefore, the opponents’ logic lacks persuasiveness, and design actually possesses positive functions.
Opponents raise another issue. They argue that if genetic engineering technology is only available to high-income groups, the gap between classes will widen, and social class mobility will decrease. They argue that while the wealthy can afford to apply design to their children, the middle and lower classes cannot. Consequently, children from affluent families would monopolize social success based on their innate advantages, potentially leading to the solidification of socioeconomic class.
However, this concern stems from a short-term perspective. In the long run, genetic engineering technology is highly likely to become widespread according to market logic. As demand increases and supply expands, the price of the technology will naturally decrease, improving accessibility. Ultimately, diverse socioeconomic classes in South Korea will also be able to utilize genetic engineering technology. If, despite this, the extremely poor still face difficulty accessing the technology, the South Korean government and society could provide them with genetic engineering support through systems similar to medical welfare or educational expense assistance. This is a perfectly just direction when considering social equity.
Furthermore, opponents argue that if design spreads throughout society, everyone will become homogenous, reducing diversity. Their logic is that parents will pursue only socially desirable appearances or abilities, ultimately leading everyone to possess similar traits. Here, opponents cite examples of homogenized behavior, such as the proliferation of private education and entrance exam competition in South Korea.
However, this argument is a logical leap. First, standards of beauty vary greatly across cultures and individuals. Even in South Korea, some prefer fair skin and use whitening products, while others favor tanning and intentionally darken their skin. Thus, it cannot be assumed that only identical traits would be selected even if design were widespread. Second, even if everyone were born with identical abilities, this need not be problematic. In reality, there are cases where a genius who hasn’t exerted effort achieves greater success than a talented person who has worked diligently for a long time. This can be seen as an example where chance at the starting line limits life opportunities. However, if everyone possessed identical abilities, innate differences would vanish, making a fairer meritocratic society possible where achievement is determined solely by effort. From the perspective of South Korean citizens, such a society is desirable as it provides a fair starting line.
Opponents, including Sandel, argue that a society where success is determined solely by effort leads to a weakening of solidarity. They contend that when individual success includes an element of luck, people maintain humility and feel solidarity towards those who were unlucky. However, if success is determined entirely by effort, the social safety net could collapse.
However, this argument stems from an overly simplistic premise about human solidarity. In reality, within South Korean society, even those who have not succeeded actively practice philanthropy. For instance, individuals facing economic hardship donate money earned from collecting scrap, or those who earn money through small-scale businesses donate it to universities or welfare institutions. According to Sandel’s logic, these individuals should lack solidarity precisely because they are unsuccessful, yet reality tells a different story. This reveals a disconnect between the opponents’ premise and actual human behavior. Furthermore, solidarity is rooted in bonds formed through human relationships—family, friends, and community—and is not directly linked to the spread of genetic design. Therefore, the claim that introducing design would destroy South Korea’s social safety net is unfounded.
In conclusion, genetic design can be viewed as a fundamental parental right, analogous to the process of educating one’s children. Through design, children can transcend limitations arising from innate talent differences and gain broader opportunities for self-realization. If design spreads stably throughout Korean society, all children will start life from a fairer starting line, gradually leading to a society where meritocracy and equality harmonize.
