Book Review – The Case Against Perfection (Can genetic engineering be used as a technology to change the nature of human beings, or are there limits?)

Michael Sandel’s arguments and rebuttals address the controversy over the use of genetic engineering for human enhancement and therapeutic purposes, and emphasize the need for legal and ethical consideration of where genetic engineering is headed. I argue that genetic engineering can and should be used for the benefit of humanity.

 

In the 1998 movie Gattaca, directed by Andrew Niccol, the protagonist is tall, handsome, knowledgeable about space science, cold and calculating, and has the perfect superiority factor. One of the goals of genetic engineering is to discover superiority factors in human genes, manipulate them, and artificially transplant them into humans. However, this goal of genetic engineering has been at the center of controversy for decades because it involves changing the very nature of a person. In this article, we’ll focus on the issue of genetic engineering and the design of personalized babies.
Michael Sandel discusses these issues in his book The Case Against Perfection. One of his arguments is that genetic engineering should not be used to design custom babies and enhance humans through genetic manipulation. These technologies, he explains, can lead to eugenics, and by trying to conquer life without acknowledging that life is a gift, they challenge the values that humans have cultivated. As we have more freedom of choice, we also have more responsibility, and if we are unable to handle this, he argues, our Promethean desire to conquer life and dominate our environment will erase compassion for others and solidarity among humans. Health is different from enhancement because it is one of the ultimate goals of life, not just a means to an end. Therefore, he argues that there should be a distinction between genetic engineering for medical purposes and for enhancement, and that medical purposes should be allowed.
In this article, I will defend and refute the author’s opinion on several grounds. First, the author’s meaning of “life as a gift” is somewhat ambiguous. The way it is phrased can be interpreted in a religious way, implying that humans should conform to the given conditions, environment, and follow the laws of nature. However, humans have the right to pursue their own happiness to the best of their ability in the life they are given. Steinvorth (2007), a prominent German scholar, also argued in his paper that genetic engineering is justified if it is used to increase the benefit of humanity, as long as it does not violate the rights of others. As such, humans can use and pursue any means to improve their abilities, even if it is through genetic engineering, as long as it is not antisocial and violates the rights of others.
Furthermore, individuals do not bear all the responsibility for their actions, and the responsibility for the freedom of choice afforded by new technologies is distributed throughout society. Therefore, the author’s statement that individuals do not and cannot bear all the responsibility is somewhat exaggerated. The author argues that humans lose a sense of solidarity by trying to conquer life, but this argument involves a logical leap. The notion that feeling in complete control of a situation eliminates compassion for others is not justified, and even if compassion is lacking, human solidarity is not just about feeling sorry for others and feeling that they are in the same situation as you. Cooperation with a common goal can also come from an attitude of conquering life, which is also a form of solidarity. Contrary to the author’s belief, humans can form solidarity by cooperating with a common goal of conquering life, and by advancing genetic engineering as a means of doing so.
Furthermore, while the author argues that genetic engineering is acceptable for medical purposes, he does not clearly delineate the line between enhancement and treatment. When is it a disease and when is it normal? ADHD is often categorized as a disease. The treatment is to improve concentration, which, if genetic engineering is used, is a form of enhancement, which the authors acknowledge in the text. The authors don’t clearly define the boundaries between treatment and enhancement, citing a “pile of paradoxes”. However, in the real world, the boundaries are controversial, and the boundaries between treatment and enrichment are not absolute and are not clear because we are human.
Even in situations that can be clearly recognized as therapeutic, the use of genetic engineering is not always right. A South Korean ethicist, citing the World Medical Association’s opinion, raised the issue that “allowing the use of eugenics at the individual level could lead to the devaluation of the sick and incapacitated.” As such, genetic engineering used for therapeutic purposes is subject to the same market principles as genetic engineering used for enhancement purposes, so it can be limited to the upper class and lead to the above discrimination. This contradicts the author’s argument in favor of therapeutic genetic engineering because it could lead to eugenics in a free market. Therefore, if the author is arguing that genetic engineering should be allowed for therapeutic purposes, then the argument against genetic enhancement and personalized baby design is that it should also be allowed for enhancement.
The author opposes the use of genetic engineering for enhancement purposes. There are three main grounds for this. Two of these arguments do not sufficiently support the author’s claim, and one paradoxically supports that genetic engineering can be used for enhancement. Therefore, we can conclude that the author’s argument against limited genetic engineering is not convincing. Humanity has used technological advancements to improve the quality of life, fulfill its goals, and satisfy intrinsic human needs. Genetic engineering is one of those technologies, and as stated above, there is no justification for it to be restricted if it results in an increase in human benefit. Therefore, there is no reason to oppose its use for enhancement purposes. Even if it changes the nature of humans and results in a species change, it should be encouraged if it is evolution for the better.
Technology is advancing rapidly. However, society’s awareness and moral and ethical consciousness doesn’t seem to be keeping up with it, which leads to many controversies and problems. Genetic engineering is different from other technologies and disciplines due to the fact that it can change the nature of the human being. It’s not right to be afraid of this change and close off the possibility of progress. When a new path is discovered, it’s best to be prepared to explore it. Now that genetic engineering has been given to us, we need to be prepared by enacting appropriate laws and continuing to study the ethics of genetic engineering. When genetic engineering is used for enhancement purposes, it is necessary to consider what is not antisocial and brings about the advancement of human interests. In other words, it is time for research on the direction of the path of genetic engineering. This should be followed by legal research to come up with internationally uniform standards. In conclusion, we should encourage the development of genetic engineering so that it can be used in various fields. It’s up to humans to decide how to use this technology that could lead us to a new species.