This blog post examines whether the act of designing a child’s future through genetic engineering is morally justifiable.
Introduction
These days, parents ‘design’ their children. Some might argue that since parents have always exerted significant influence over their children, they have been ‘designing’ them for centuries. However, the new ‘design’ method of the 21st century discussed in this article is different. It involves genetic manipulation through biotechnology, ushering in an era where parents can have children tailored to their desires. But before embracing this technology, we must deeply consider the changes it will bring. Is genetic design truly the right thing?
Main Argument
In ‘The Case Against Perfection’, author Michael J. Sandel presents a strong argument against genetically designing children. He asserts that life is a gift, and artificially designing the life that is born distorts the meaning of its creation. By accepting life as a gift, humans can humbly embrace their own existence. Furthermore, he argues that distorting the meaning of birth can lead to conflict between parents and children. While parents should watch their child grow with an open mind, he contends that with a designed child, parents may develop excessive expectations, ultimately damaging the relationship.
However, Sandel’s argument contains a contradiction. What if a child is born with a fatal genetic disease? Even if the probability is slim, some babies might be born with a rare disease and face death immediately. Or they might have to endure genetic defects like hair loss genes or color blindness for their entire lives. In such situations, can one truly regard their inherited genetic flaws as a ‘gift’? Sandel’s call to ‘accept life with humility’ cannot be easily applied to everyone. Rather, his argument seems valid only for those who were relatively ‘well-born’.
So, is genetic design a solution that satisfies everyone? From the perspective of disease prevention, genetic design can offer significant advantages to parents. Medical professionals can select healthy sperm and eggs to prevent fatal genetic diseases, and parents can reduce the anxiety of their child being born with a disability or illness. In modern society, delayed childbirth, stress, and environmental factors increase the likelihood of unhealthy children being born. In this reality, preventing disease through genetic design is a crucial issue. Being born healthy is truly the ultimate ‘gift,’ and genetic design can serve a positive function for both parents and children.
However, some may still hold moral objections, believing life is God’s domain and humans should not encroach upon it. Humans are dignified beings precisely because they are endowed with human rights from birth. Therefore, even parents cannot do as they please with their children; every person has the right to determine their own life.
Of course, humans, as subjects possessing human rights, deserve respect and have the right to shape their own destiny. However, it is necessary to question whether gene design infringes upon these human rights. The aforementioned disease treatment actually helps children enjoy a basic quality of life, thereby safeguarding their rights. The claim that life is an absolute domain beyond science’s reach is merely a religious belief. Furthermore, the concept of ‘the right to determine one’s own life’ contains a logical fallacy. No one can choose their own genes before birth; they are merely the result of a random selection from their parents’ genetic pool. If one cannot choose their genes, then condemning genetic design for making an uncertain fate safer is nonsensical.
While the logic surrounding pre-birth genetic selection is somewhat established, issues remain regarding genetic enhancement. This is because genetic design could be used not only for disease prevention but also to enhance a child’s appearance or abilities to meet parental expectations. For instance, parents could enhance muscle genes to raise their child as a baseball player or manipulate appearance to make them an entertainer. However, such methods tailor the child’s life to parental expectations, which could be considered a violation of the child’s human rights.
Two counterarguments can be made against this claim. First, even if parents determine their child’s future and provide the genetic traits to match, whether the child chooses that career remains uncertain. Having developed muscle genes doesn’t guarantee becoming a baseball player. They could become a soccer player or a scholar with great physical stamina. Acquired factors also significantly influence life. Second, parents already greatly influence their children’s futures. If parents want a gymnast or entertainer, they will start training them from childhood. Even if they want a doctor or lawyer, the child’s life changes based on the parents’ choice. Regardless of genetic design, parental expectations can greatly influence a child’s life.
However, I agree with Sandel’s point that problems can arise when genetic enhancement is abused or misused. If everyone desires healthier and more attractive children, society could gradually become more competitive and devoid of individuality.
Conclusion
This blog post presented an opposing viewpoint to Michael Sandel’s argument that we should “accept the life we are given.” Enhancing genes to ensure a healthy life at birth can be considered a true ‘gift’. If genetic design is used for disease prevention, it benefits both parents and children. This can serve to protect human rights, not violate them. However, institutional safeguards are necessary to prevent the abuse of genetic enhancement. If genetic enhancement technology is reliably supported, it could establish itself as a technology that positively impacts children.
