This blog post examines whether genetic enhancement truly benefits children or whether parental decisions limit their autonomy, exploring various cases and arguments.
Michael Sandel argues in his book “The Ethics of Life” that parents should not genetically design their children, opposing genetic manipulation and excessive education. Sandel introduces the concept of ‘changing love’ in this process. ‘Changing love’ is love that seeks to change children for the better, for their welfare, contrasting with ‘accepting love’, which is ‘love that respects children’s condition as it is’. According to Sandel, desirable parental love is the harmonious balance of these two loves. However, he criticizes modern parents for being overly biased toward ‘transformative love,’ which he argues leads to various ethical problems. In particular, Sandel distinguishes between the concepts of ‘treatment’ and ‘enhancement,’ asserting that the attitude of genetically enhancing children is deeply problematic. This blog post examines Sandel’s views and discusses my position and counterarguments.
The first point Sandel emphasizes is that the responsibility for ‘cure’ does not justify the responsibility for ‘enhancement’. ‘Cure’ refers to the act of treating a child’s illness, like healing a son with a cold, while ‘enhancement’ involves maximizing a specific ability in a child who is not ill. Those who argue enhancement can be justified treat health as a ‘tool’. However, Sandel views this instrumental understanding of health as flawed. Health is a value for human flourishing, but it is not a value that can be infinitely elevated; it is a ‘good’ with inherent limits. He points out that the attitude of continuously enhancing children deviates from the ‘norm of unconditional love’ parents should hold, and stresses the need for an attitude that views children as ‘a blessing’.
Second, Sandel discusses the moral problems arising from an attitude overly focused on ‘changing love’. He describes the reality of overparenting evident in modern American sports culture and college society, arguing that such overparenting inevitably provokes moral repugnance. According to Sandel’s analysis, the root of this repugnance lies in how overparenting functions as an ‘effort to conform to a competitive society.’ He warns that this conformist attitude excessively reinforces parents’ impulse to criticize given conditions, ultimately creating problems not fundamentally different from eugenic reinforcement. Overparenting causes us to lose sight of the perspective that views ‘life as a gift.’
I, too, oppose actions overly biased toward genetic reinforcement of children—that is, ‘changing love.’ While some parents may believe changing love benefits their children far more than accepting love, this is not actually the case. Consider the concept of physical health. Comparing individuals genetically predisposed to excel at exercise with those who are not does not necessarily mean the former are healthier. Medical research indicates that the amount of exercise needed to maintain health is within the capacity of most average people. Conversely, high-intensity exercise performed by those with exceptional athletic ability can actually be detrimental to health.
Some might counter that if parents genetically enhance their child’s athletic ability, it will ultimately benefit the child. However, the problem arises because the judge of this ‘benefit’ is the parent, not the child. A choice parents believe will benefit their child may actually conflict with the child’s own intentions. For example, suppose parents genetically enhance their child’s height to improve basketball skills. However, the child might have wanted to become an equestrian, where shorter stature is advantageous. In this case, genetic enhancement does not benefit the child. Therefore, genetic enhancement performed without confirming the child’s wishes does not guarantee their benefit.
So, can enhancement be justified if it only boosts foundational abilities like athletic skill, intelligence, or physical strength? On the surface, foundational abilities seem universally beneficial regardless of the child’s career path. However, the value of these abilities also varies depending on the social, cultural, and historical context the child inhabits. Consider physical strength. While greater physical strength is generally perceived as beneficial, in a society where higher physical strength increases the probability of conscription and lengthens military service, it may not benefit the child. The child might even desire weaker physical strength to avoid conscription. This is reflected in historical anecdotes. A story is told of an old man who grieved over his son’s broken leg but later felt grateful because it meant his son would not go to war.
Some argue that while the value of foundational abilities is relative, strengthening them based on what 21st-century South Korean society demands poses no problem. However, this argument also has limitations. Strengthening foundational abilities inevitably means children lose other elements. For instance, for a child aspiring to be a company employee in South Korean society, ‘humble teamwork’ might be a more essential skill than physical strength or intelligence. Yet, someone with excessively high intelligence might struggle to cooperate with the opinions of relatively less capable colleagues during teamwork. Therefore, enhancing foundational abilities could, depending on the situation, actually work against the child.
In this blog post, I examined Sandel’s opinion and core arguments regarding the question of whether children can be designed, presented my own position, and reviewed anticipated counterarguments and their problems. To summarize the discussion: contrary to opponents’ claims that genetic enhancement benefits children, enhancing either general abilities or foundational skills is unlikely to provide genuine benefits. As Sandel points out, parents must make moral judgments based on conscience, and opponents’ arguments also contain errors on multiple fronts. Therefore, the answer to the question ‘Is it acceptable to design children?’ is ‘No.’ In the case of South Korea, while a significant number of citizens hold an opposing stance toward genetic child design, recent advances in genetic engineering technology and its adoption across various fields show a tendency to weaken this awareness. Amidst this change, it is believed that the perception of viewing children as a ‘blessing’ must become more firmly established within South Korean society.
