Genetic Enhancement Unethical

1525 Words 7 Pages
Why Genetic Enhancement is Unethical
The growing desire for the perfect child and increased pressure and expectations from society have pushed parents toward genetic enhancement--the altering of their child’s genes for the purpose of intellectual and/or physical advances. The scientific advancements, making genetic enhancement possible have resulted in a conflicted society; some people support the new technology, while others argue it should not be used. Philosopher Michael J. Sandel critiques the use of genetic enhancement in his book The Case Against Perfection and constructs a claim examining why genetic enhancement is unethical. Sandel disputes the morality of genetic enhancement with two points: (1) because enhancement leads to a loss
…show more content…
If a child is genetically enhanced to be born a strong athlete, he or she will have no modesty for the trait they had no part in gaining. Just think, a child who works hard to be athletic and rival the enhanced child will hold a greater value for their accomplishments. As a result he or she will behave in a more reserved manner.
The second consequence resulting from a loss of appreciation for giftedness is an increased sense of responsibility. Children genetically enhanced to be athletic will have an expectation to stand out among unenhanced athletes. These genetically enhanced children will feel more pressure to excel because their parents, knowing their enhanced genes, will expect them to succeed according to the advances of their genes.
A loss of solidarity is the third consequence that Sandel observes resulting from a loss of appreciation for giftedness. He connects the Giftedness View to a loss of solidarity by addressing the correlation between a loss of appreciation for natural talent to a feeling that “success is the crown virtue.”5 When success is the expectation and that success is not met, children with enhanced genes will encounter more conflict for not living up to their
…show more content…
Although Sandel does not think it is a reason for concern, I disagree because there is something especially bad about a person choosing another person’s genetics. No matter the impossibility to choose your own genetics, I contend that no parent should disrupt the natural lottery that determines their child’s genes. My claim does not just have to do with playing God. Rather, I argue that parents who choose their child’s genes through genetic enhancement have too much control over their child’s life. I think Sandel underestimates the importance of the loss of autonomy and wrongly overlooks the value in this argument. His point that methods of therapy can do more than cure disease is irrelevant to the argument. Medical treatment, necessary for curing disease is not comparable to a parent’s choice to choose genes for their unborn child that will predetermine their life as a strong

Related Documents