In this blog, we will answer the question: Is it right for parents to genetically design their children?

Introduction

Advances in biotechnology, especially genetic engineering, are making it possible to do things that were once impossible. The ability to manipulate and control human genes to create or enhance desired human beings is no longer a distant possibility. However, the humanities have not yet established the ethical basis for making such judgments.

Plot summary

Michael Sandel, author of The Case against Perfection, is neither completely for nor against the use of genetic engineering. While he opposes the use of genetic engineering in areas such as parental design of children, genetic enhancement, or human cloning, he is in favor of its use for therapeutic purposes and in the context of research for cures. His attitude is centered on one core principle. This attitude centers on one core principle: respect for “life” and seeing it as a gift. A “gift ethic” means a mindset that accepts things as they are, free from the Promethean desire to control, regulate, and dominate. As Sandel notes, the line between genetic engineering and genetic enhancement is blurred. While one can certainly argue in favor of curing a fatal genetic disease and against genetic enhancement that is clearly done for the betterment of the body, it is difficult to choose a position in the gray area of whether it is a cure or an enhancement. Obviously, this is a difficult area to regulate as a law or system, so I urge us to change our thinking in terms of ethics and morality, which I call “gift ethics.”
Now, let’s focus on Sandel’s argument about parents genetically designing their children. Before talking about genetically enhancing or designing children, Sandel points out that there are two kinds of love that parents have for their children. These are the love of acceptance and the love of transformation, which are countered by the aforementioned ethic of acceptance as a gift and the Promethean desire to control and control everything. In the end, Sandel argues that genetic engineering is too heavily skewed toward transformative love, and that this is the ethical problem with designing children. Some might argue that this is the point. That genetically designing children is no different from the high-pressure parental discipline and over-parenting that has always existed. Certainly, from a moral and ethical framework, there is not much difference between the two. However, Sandel emphasizes that this does not justify genetically designing children. Rather, he argues that we need to question the high-pressure training and upbringing that we have unconsciously accepted until now.

Is it right to genetically design children?

Is it right for parents to genetically design their children? I don’t think so. Even just looking at the above sentence by itself, many people will feel a pang of reluctance in their heart. Why are we uncomfortable with the idea of genetically designing our children? The reason is that genetic design threatens the important value of human dignity.
In layman’s terms, human dignity is the idea that a person, or the person’s personhood, deserves respect just for being human. No one would disagree that human dignity is important and that we should strive to protect it. However, some people may question whether the genetic design of a child violates human dignity. For example, consider the value of “beauty”. People value beauty and strive to attain it. Some people believe that they are born with this value, while others believe that they do not have it and acquire it through artificial means, such as plastic surgery. While there may be arguments for and against plastic surgery, if we focus solely on the value of “beauty,” does plastic surgery threaten this value? Although the process of acquiring the value is different, both sides have the value of “beauty” as a result, and the value of beauty is not threatened. Similarly, if human dignity means that all human beings should be respected for the fact that they are human, then the argument that genetic design is a threat to human dignity is wrong because human dignity should be maintained no matter how the human being was created.
However, if we think about why the value of human dignity arose, we can refute this position. Why should humans be respected because they are human, and what are the criteria that distinguish humans from non-humans? I believe that the primary criterion that distinguishes humans from all other things is “free will”. While inanimate objects have no inherent principles of behavior, and non-human creatures act on instinct, humans have free will and can make their own decisions at every moment of choice. This is our most defining characteristic, and our dignity is derived from it. So what are the problems with genetic design in terms of free will? In Sandel’s book, he gives an example involving the cloning of a cat. When a cat named Nicky dies, the owner demands that the cloning company create a cat exactly like Nicky, and is very satisfied that the new Nicky looks like the old Nicky. This story is simple, but it illustrates the point that genetic design can be a violation of free will. In the case of Nicky, the owner wants the newly cloned Nicky to look exactly like the old Nicky, to have the same habits, and to behave similarly. In other words, the cloned Nicky is not respected as an individual, but is the product of a purposeful design to resemble the old Nicky. Extending this example to human genetic design, when parents design their children, they are projecting the purpose that the child should have such and such abilities, appearance, and even personality to live up to the future they have planned. This projected purpose directly or indirectly influences the many choices that the child faces in his or her future, which means that free will has been violated.
Those in favor of genetic design may question whether human dignity truly derives from free will. If human dignity derives from free will, then a person is a human being, but if a person does not have free will, for example, a vegetable, then there is no problem with the deprivation of human dignity. In the case of a vegetable, there is no need to respect the object or person.
But even in these cases, we instinctively feel that human dignity should not be deprived. So, what is the basis for this? First of all, in the case of vegetative humans, there is the possibility of restoring their free will. They may not be able to make decisions and may be no more than biologically alive organisms, but they may regain their humanity in the future. Furthermore, even brain-dead humans, who are considered to have little chance of regaining free will, have human dignity at the request of society. Unlike normal human beings, who have human dignity because they have free will, these individuals do not have, nor will they ever have, free will. However, because they are identical to human beings in many ways except for their free will, denying them human dignity raises ethical issues because their human dignity is also denied to normal people. Therefore, society requests that they have human dignity even when they do not have free will. Therefore, their human dignity is requested, not required. This is reaffirmed by the fact that organ donation can take place in brain death.

Conclusion

The genetic design of children is harmful in terms of the value of human dignity. Thanks to free will, human beings are able to make rational choices rather than always following their instincts at the moment of choice, and it is this ability to make choices that makes the human being an individual that deserves respect for its very existence. However, the genetic design of a child, whether it is applied to their appearance, abilities, or personality, is bound to result in undue parental interference in their life and ultimately in their exercise of free will. To paraphrase Sandel, there are two kinds of love a parent can have for their child: transforming love and accepting love. Genetic design is seen as an excessive manifestation of the desire to change the child and an excessive interference with the child’s free will. Therefore, I am opposed to genetic design.