Genetic Enhancement by Walter Glannon Walter Glannon believes in genetic equality and equal opportunities. He thinks that genetic enhancements are morally wrong and unnecessary. He differentiates gene therapy and gene enhancements and says that gene enhancements are morally objectionable because it goes above the normal baseline. He prefers gene therapy because its main objective is to return a person’s function to a sufficient baseline. He provides four premises for his conclusion. Firstly, it provides an unfair advantage, only rich people could afford genetic enhancements. Secondly, making it universally affordable and fair would be self-defeating because of the social cost. Thirdly, it would result in inequalities and disrupt self-respect,
…show more content…
But he says this would defeat the purpose of unity because some people would suffer from adverse cognitive or emotional effects of the enhancement. “Although much competitive unfairness at the individual level would be canceled out at the collective level, there would be unacceptable social cost of some people suffering from adverse cognitive or emotional effects of the enhancement” (Glannon 241). My first objection is that this argument is invalid. If the main objective is to make everyone achieve adequate baseline, meaning making everyone equal, this solution that we should make everyone have access to genetic enhancements is not plausible because not everyone needs or wants genetic enhancements. If someone is already born more beautiful than others this makes them inherently above baseline and if you add genetic enhancement it would make them even more above baseline which would be redundant and unnecessary. Speaking of unfair, my second objection would be that the world is already unfair. Some people are born with “unfair” advantages. Some humans are born with inherent traits that can be naturally above the norm. A person can have traits that they are born with, like beauty or athleticism in sports. Having these talents are not morally wrong. If this were the case, would we need to make a person ugly or weaken an athlete in order to make everyone equal and reach a
But he says this would defeat the purpose of unity because some people would suffer from adverse cognitive or emotional effects of the enhancement. “Although much competitive unfairness at the individual level would be canceled out at the collective level, there would be unacceptable social cost of some people suffering from adverse cognitive or emotional effects of the enhancement” (Glannon 241). My first objection is that this argument is invalid. If the main objective is to make everyone achieve adequate baseline, meaning making everyone equal, this solution that we should make everyone have access to genetic enhancements is not plausible because not everyone needs or wants genetic enhancements. If someone is already born more beautiful than others this makes them inherently above baseline and if you add genetic enhancement it would make them even more above baseline which would be redundant and unnecessary. Speaking of unfair, my second objection would be that the world is already unfair. Some people are born with “unfair” advantages. Some humans are born with inherent traits that can be naturally above the norm. A person can have traits that they are born with, like beauty or athleticism in sports. Having these talents are not morally wrong. If this were the case, would we need to make a person ugly or weaken an athlete in order to make everyone equal and reach a