The Case Against Perfection
In order to cater an ever changing society, and as science continues to progress, many claim genetically modifying humanity is a no brainer. Though, Michael Sandel would heavily disagree, claiming, “Changing our nature to fit the world, rather than the other way around, is actually the deepest form of disempowerment. It distracts us from reflecting critically on the world, and deadens the impulse to social and political improvement,” (97). Instead of changing humanity, he proposes alterations to society, in order to custom nature. But why? His reasoning largely has to do with his value of humanity’s giftedness. Through Michael Sandel’s book, The Case Against Perfection, because of the importance of the giftedness …show more content…
Today, there are more thoughts about allowing parents to bioengineer their children. Instead of relying on fate to see how their baby turns out, some people want the power to genetically modify their kids before birth. For example, if a parent wanted a tall boy, they could predetermine this. Contrastingly, Michael Sandel argues bioengineering because again, it takes away the giftedness of children. He explains, “To appreciate children as gifts is to accept them as they come, not as objects of our design, or products of our will, or instrument of our ambition,” (45). Simply, we have full range in the choice of our spouse and who we procreate with. We also have a choice with how our children are raised. Yet, we do not or deserve to have a choice in our children’s genetic …show more content…
First, if bioengineering of children becomes legal or even possible, it would more than likely come with a price tag, especially in our society of a free market. Sandel writes, “It is not a movement of social reform but rather a way for privileged parents to have the kind of children they want and arm them for success in a competitive society,” (78). People who are well off would be able to avoid the lottery of life and create giftedness, instead of allowing nature or a higher power to decide. Therefore, in regards to people with natural talents, their giftedness would soon no longer be talents because of the ability to create a better one. Instead of allowing fate to decide, it would come down to who can afford the giftedness to get ahead. Before having a baby, there is no way every human could have access to genetic bioengineering, and even if it was possible, it would only create equality. If everyone does it, what is the point? Isn’t the goal in genetic modification to get ahead of the average human and create inequality? This is why Sandel says we need to leave humans as natural humans and allow fate to allocate the
In order to cater an ever changing society, and as science continues to progress, many claim genetically modifying humanity is a no brainer. Though, Michael Sandel would heavily disagree, claiming, “Changing our nature to fit the world, rather than the other way around, is actually the deepest form of disempowerment. It distracts us from reflecting critically on the world, and deadens the impulse to social and political improvement,” (97). Instead of changing humanity, he proposes alterations to society, in order to custom nature. But why? His reasoning largely has to do with his value of humanity’s giftedness. Through Michael Sandel’s book, The Case Against Perfection, because of the importance of the giftedness …show more content…
Today, there are more thoughts about allowing parents to bioengineer their children. Instead of relying on fate to see how their baby turns out, some people want the power to genetically modify their kids before birth. For example, if a parent wanted a tall boy, they could predetermine this. Contrastingly, Michael Sandel argues bioengineering because again, it takes away the giftedness of children. He explains, “To appreciate children as gifts is to accept them as they come, not as objects of our design, or products of our will, or instrument of our ambition,” (45). Simply, we have full range in the choice of our spouse and who we procreate with. We also have a choice with how our children are raised. Yet, we do not or deserve to have a choice in our children’s genetic …show more content…
First, if bioengineering of children becomes legal or even possible, it would more than likely come with a price tag, especially in our society of a free market. Sandel writes, “It is not a movement of social reform but rather a way for privileged parents to have the kind of children they want and arm them for success in a competitive society,” (78). People who are well off would be able to avoid the lottery of life and create giftedness, instead of allowing nature or a higher power to decide. Therefore, in regards to people with natural talents, their giftedness would soon no longer be talents because of the ability to create a better one. Instead of allowing fate to decide, it would come down to who can afford the giftedness to get ahead. Before having a baby, there is no way every human could have access to genetic bioengineering, and even if it was possible, it would only create equality. If everyone does it, what is the point? Isn’t the goal in genetic modification to get ahead of the average human and create inequality? This is why Sandel says we need to leave humans as natural humans and allow fate to allocate the