In contrast to Walter Glannon’s view that gene enhancement is morally objectionable, genetic enhancement, for the purposes of attaining a competitive advantage through increased potential in intelligence, athleticism, or attractiveness, etc. should not be viewed as morally illegitimate, because the consequences and intentions of gene enhancement can be morally justified through John Stuart Mill’s Principle of Utility and Emmanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Walter Glannon argues four reasons as to why gene enhancement is “morally permissible if it is intended to ensure or restore normal functions, but is morally illegitimate if it is aimed at enhancing functions beyond normal.” However, gene enhancement is a simply one form of genetic alternation.
…show more content…
While choice to undergo genetic enhancements would fall under the principle of a hypothetical imperative, the right to pursue those interests is a categorical imperative. Kant defined categorical imperatives as a moral obligation that all people must follow. Kant contends that the categorical imperative is derived from pure reason. Hypothetical imperatives, in contrast, are choices and not commands and as such, they derived from one’s individual desires. In Kant’s First Formulation: The Universality of the Law of Nature, one must “act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” The ability for one to pursue individual interests is a personal choice. If one desires to be smart, they can study hard and try to get into a good college to increase their intelligence. There is, however, no moral obligation to be smart. Nor is there a moral obligation to be athletic, or attractive, etc. Society cannot practically will that these characteristics become universal. Therefore, the ability of one to pursue their own individual interests is a hypothetical imperative, but the right for one to pursue their own individual interests is a categorical imperative. Many …show more content…
Emmanuel Kant would likely argue that the social cost of some people suffering from adverse cognitive or emotional effects of the genetic enhancements is not the intention of genetic enhancement since there is no categorical imperative that one is obligated to undergo
While choice to undergo genetic enhancements would fall under the principle of a hypothetical imperative, the right to pursue those interests is a categorical imperative. Kant defined categorical imperatives as a moral obligation that all people must follow. Kant contends that the categorical imperative is derived from pure reason. Hypothetical imperatives, in contrast, are choices and not commands and as such, they derived from one’s individual desires. In Kant’s First Formulation: The Universality of the Law of Nature, one must “act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” The ability for one to pursue individual interests is a personal choice. If one desires to be smart, they can study hard and try to get into a good college to increase their intelligence. There is, however, no moral obligation to be smart. Nor is there a moral obligation to be athletic, or attractive, etc. Society cannot practically will that these characteristics become universal. Therefore, the ability of one to pursue their own individual interests is a hypothetical imperative, but the right for one to pursue their own individual interests is a categorical imperative. Many …show more content…
Emmanuel Kant would likely argue that the social cost of some people suffering from adverse cognitive or emotional effects of the genetic enhancements is not the intention of genetic enhancement since there is no categorical imperative that one is obligated to undergo