Rhetorical Analysis of “The Case Against Perfection” The world today wants simple answers to its complex problems. Whether it is in politics, religion, science, we want to be told what is right and what is wrong. But often times, as in the case of genetic engineering, the moral divide becomes hazy and begins reflects “a kind of moral vertigo”, which Michael Sandel attempts to relieve in his essay entitled “The Case Against Perfection”(2004). Here, Sandel argues that further pursuits in genetic engineering will destroy our humanity by damaging our capacities for humility. To develop this point, Sandel first establishes the value of humility, and then he integrates the audience’s ideas regarding gene-editing with his own. These strategies are
…show more content…
In terms of organization, Sandel uses juxtaposition to emphasize the humility in present society by contrasting it with the self-absorbed society that would inevitably result from widespread access to gene-editing services, or so he claims. In paragraph five, Sandel illustrates that people exhibit humility in the current insurance market as they recognize their similar situations and pool their resources. In contrast, in paragraph six, he hypothesizes how humility would disintegrate in a genetically-altered world because “those at the bottom of society would be viewed not as disadvantaged, but as simply unfit”, clearly demonstrating the value of humility in fostering the “social solidarity” seen within the current insurance market and in society in general (112-114). Because at first glance the insurance example seems irrelevant to the idea of humility yet through further inspection it becomes highly relevant, it serves as both a powerful and accessible example that strongly establishes the pervasiveness of humility within our current society. Furthermore, Sandel is able to emphasize these ideas both through physical separation and polysyndeton. Splitting up the paragraphs according to idea allows Sandel to strengthen the juxtaposition in the minds of his audience …show more content…
By discussing Sinsheimer’s article on genetic engineering, Sandel is able to indirectly acknowledge the optimistic position the audience holds regarding genetic engineering while also shaping their ideas to increasingly reflect his own. If the audience’s ideas were a piece of wood, Sandel would be the carver, using Sinsheimer’s argument to create something reflective of his views, rather than those of his audience. Furthermore, rather than using an a hypothetical example to expresses the audience’s ideas, he exemplifies their ideas through the words of a Caltech professor because it lends credibility to the audience’s, and therefore Sandel’s own position. Sandel is able to accomplish this integration of ideas through an atypical structure and clever word choice. First, Sandel sows seeds of doubt in the minds of his audience prior to discussing Sinscheimer’s ideas so that they can effectively reach his conclusion themselves. In paragraphs eight and nine Sandel argues that despite our desire to see it otherwise, we are not in control of or responsible for those traits acquired genetically because they are based solely on luck. Later when discussing Sinsheimer’s argument, Sandel express Sinsheimer’s idea that genetic engineering will allow us to become “masters of our nature”. By expressing his ideas about genetics and
In terms of organization, Sandel uses juxtaposition to emphasize the humility in present society by contrasting it with the self-absorbed society that would inevitably result from widespread access to gene-editing services, or so he claims. In paragraph five, Sandel illustrates that people exhibit humility in the current insurance market as they recognize their similar situations and pool their resources. In contrast, in paragraph six, he hypothesizes how humility would disintegrate in a genetically-altered world because “those at the bottom of society would be viewed not as disadvantaged, but as simply unfit”, clearly demonstrating the value of humility in fostering the “social solidarity” seen within the current insurance market and in society in general (112-114). Because at first glance the insurance example seems irrelevant to the idea of humility yet through further inspection it becomes highly relevant, it serves as both a powerful and accessible example that strongly establishes the pervasiveness of humility within our current society. Furthermore, Sandel is able to emphasize these ideas both through physical separation and polysyndeton. Splitting up the paragraphs according to idea allows Sandel to strengthen the juxtaposition in the minds of his audience …show more content…
By discussing Sinsheimer’s article on genetic engineering, Sandel is able to indirectly acknowledge the optimistic position the audience holds regarding genetic engineering while also shaping their ideas to increasingly reflect his own. If the audience’s ideas were a piece of wood, Sandel would be the carver, using Sinsheimer’s argument to create something reflective of his views, rather than those of his audience. Furthermore, rather than using an a hypothetical example to expresses the audience’s ideas, he exemplifies their ideas through the words of a Caltech professor because it lends credibility to the audience’s, and therefore Sandel’s own position. Sandel is able to accomplish this integration of ideas through an atypical structure and clever word choice. First, Sandel sows seeds of doubt in the minds of his audience prior to discussing Sinscheimer’s ideas so that they can effectively reach his conclusion themselves. In paragraphs eight and nine Sandel argues that despite our desire to see it otherwise, we are not in control of or responsible for those traits acquired genetically because they are based solely on luck. Later when discussing Sinsheimer’s argument, Sandel express Sinsheimer’s idea that genetic engineering will allow us to become “masters of our nature”. By expressing his ideas about genetics and