This blog post explores the ethical issues of genetic engineering and its impact on human nature through Michael Sandel’s ‘The Case Against Perfection’.
In the 1998 film ‘Gattaca’ directed by Andrew Niccol, the protagonist possesses tall stature, handsome looks, exceptional knowledge and cold-bloodedness in space science, and perfect superiority genes. Thus, one goal of genetic engineering is to identify superior genes within humans, manipulate them, and artificially implant them into people. However, because this objective of genetic engineering involves altering human essence, it has been at the center of controversy for decades. This article primarily addresses the problems of genetic manipulation and designer babies.
Michael Sandel addresses these issues in his book ‘The Case Against Perfection’. One of his arguments is that designing designer babies through genetic engineering and human enhancement via genetic manipulation should not be permitted. The author explains that such technologies risk evolving into eugenics and undermine the values humanity has cultivated by failing to acknowledge life as a gift and instead seeking to conquer it. As humans gain greater freedom of choice, their responsibility also increases. The author contends that if we cannot bear this responsibility, our Promethean desire to conquer life will lead to a drive to dominate our given environment, causing compassion for others and solidarity among humans to vanish. The author states that health is distinct from enhancement because it is not a means to human happiness but one of life’s ultimate goals. Therefore, genetic engineering used for medical purposes must be distinguished from that used for enhancement, and medical applications should be permitted.
In this paper, I will defend and challenge the author’s position using several arguments. First, the meaning of the author’s claim about ‘life as a gift’ is somewhat ambiguous. This phrasing has religious overtones and could be interpreted to mean humans should conform to given conditions and environments, following nature’s providence. However, humans have the right to pursue their own happiness with maximum effort within the life they are given. The renowned German scholar Steinvorth (2007) also argued in his paper that genetic engineering is justified if used to enhance human welfare, provided it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Similarly, humans can utilize and pursue means to enhance their capabilities, even through genetic engineering, as long as such actions are not antisocial or infringe upon others’ rights.
Furthermore, responsibility for individual actions is not entirely borne by the individual; responsibility for the freedom of choice brought about by new technologies is distributed across society as a whole. Therefore, individuals do not bear all responsibility, and the author’s assertion that they cannot handle this is somewhat exaggerated. The author argues that humanity loses solidarity by attempting to conquer life, but this claim contains a logical leap. The notion that the belief in perfect control over one’s situation eliminates compassion for others lacks sufficient justification. Furthermore, even if compassion is lacking, human solidarity does not form solely when one feels sympathy for others or perceives them as being in the same situation. Cooperation toward a shared goal can also exist within an attitude of conquering life, and this too can be considered a form of solidarity. Contrary to the author’s view, humans can actually cooperate by sharing the common goal of conquering life, and in doing so, develop genetic engineering as a means to that end, thereby forming solidarity.
Moreover, while the author argues genetic engineering may be permissible for medical purposes, the boundary between enhancement and treatment is not clearly delineated. Where does illness end and normality begin? ADHD is commonly classified as a disease. Its treatment involves improving concentration; using genetic engineering for this could be considered a form of enhancement, a point the author himself acknowledges in the text.
The author invokes the ‘paradox of the heap’ to avoid clearly defining the boundary between treatment and enhancement. However, in reality, the issue of boundaries will be controversial, and determining the line between treatment and enhancement is inherently subjective and lacks absolute clarity because it involves human judgment.
Even in situations clearly recognized as treatment, the use of genetic engineering is not always justified. A Korean ethicist, citing the World Medical Association’s stance, raised the concern that “permitting eugenic use at the individual level could lead to the devaluation of people with illnesses or disabilities.” Thus, genetic engineering used for therapeutic purposes operates under the same market principles as when used for enhancement, potentially becoming restricted to the upper classes and fostering such discrimination. This could lead to the eugenics in a free market that the author argued against, contradicting the claim that genetic engineering should be permitted for therapeutic purposes. Therefore, if one argues that genetic engineering should be permitted for therapeutic purposes, the view that enhancement should also be permitted, based on the arguments against genetic enhancement and designer babies, is correct.
The author opposes the use of genetic engineering for enhancement purposes. The grounds for this opposition are primarily threefold. Two of these grounds do not sufficiently support the author’s argument, while one ironically serves as evidence supporting the potential use of genetic engineering for enhancement. Therefore, we can conclude that the author’s argument for a limited opposition to genetic engineering lacks persuasiveness. Humanity has improved quality of life, achieved goals, and satisfied fundamental human desires through technological advancement. Genetic engineering is one such technology. As previously stated, if it enhances human welfare, there is insufficient justification for restricting it. Therefore, there is no reason to oppose its use for enhancement purposes. Even if it alters human essence and brings about species change, it should be encouraged if it represents evolution in a better direction.
We live in an era of rapid technological advancement. However, societal awareness and moral ethics seem unable to keep pace, leading to numerous controversies and problems. Genetic engineering differs from other technologies and disciplines precisely because it has the potential to alter human essence. It is wrong to fear this change and close the door on its potential development. If a new path has been discovered, it is desirable to pioneer it with thorough preparation. Now that the path of genetic engineering has been presented to us, we must meticulously prepare through the establishment of appropriate laws and continuous ethical research. When genetic engineering is used for enhancement purposes, consideration is needed regarding what is not antisocial and what brings about the advancement of human benefit. In other words, it is time to research the direction genetic engineering should take. Subsequently, legal research must be conducted to establish internationally unified standards. In conclusion, it is desirable to encourage the advancement of genetic engineering and its expansion into diverse fields. Ultimately, how this technology—which could potentially lead humanity into a new species—is utilized rests in human hands.
