In this blog post, we explore in depth how genetic intervention by parents affects the free will and human dignity of their children.
Introduction
Advances in biotechnology, particularly genetic engineering, are making things possible that were impossible in the past. Technologies that manipulate and control human genes to create desired humans or enhance certain traits are no longer a thing of the distant future. However, the reality is that the humanistic foundation for ethical judgments surrounding these technologies has not yet been established.
The Case Against Perfection Summary
In The Case Against Perfection, author Michael Sandel takes a neutral stance on the use of genetic engineering, neither completely in favor nor completely against it. Sandel opposes parents designing their children’s genes, enhancing certain traits through genetic enhancement, and human cloning, but he takes a positive view of the use of genetic engineering for research and treatment purposes. His stance is based on the core principle that “life” should be seen as a gift. The “ethics of gift” refers to a mindset that seeks to accept life as it is, rather than trying to control and manipulate everything, as Prometheus did.
As Sandel points out, the line between genetic engineering for therapeutic purposes and genetic enhancement is blurred. For example, one may be in favor of treating fatal genetic diseases, but oppose genetic enhancement simply for the sake of better physical characteristics. However, in some cases, this distinction is difficult to make, so Sandel urges us to shift our thinking from legal or institutional regulations to an ethical perspective of “the ethics of gift.”
Let us now focus on Professor Sandel’s argument regarding “parents genetically designing their children.” Professor Sandel points out that there are two aspects to parental love. These are “accepting love” and “changing love,” which correspond to the “ethics of gift-acceptance” and “Promethean desire” mentioned earlier. Sandel points out that genetic engineering is overly biased toward changing love, and he believes that this is an ethical problem that arises from the genetic design of children. In response to this, some people may argue that there is no significant difference between parent-led high-pressure training or overparenting and the genetic design of children. From a moral and ethical point of view, there may not be a big difference between the two. However, Sandel emphasizes that this does not justify the genetic design of children, and argues that we should instead question the high-pressure training and parenting 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. Just reading this sentence alone makes many people feel uncomfortable. Why do we feel uncomfortable about genetically designing our children? The reason is that genetic design threatens the important value of human dignity.
To explain “human dignity” in simple terms, it means that people should be respected for their very existence. There is no disagreement that human dignity is important and must be protected. However, some may question whether genetic design of children violates human dignity. For example, let’s consider the value of “beauty.” People consider beauty to be an important value and pursue it. Some people feel that they have been born with this value, while others acquire it later in life through artificial means such as plastic surgery. Opinions may be divided on plastic surgery, but when focusing solely on the value of “beauty,” it is difficult to see how plastic surgery threatens that value. Ultimately, if beauty is attained regardless of whether plastic surgery is performed, the value of beauty is not threatened.
Similarly, if human dignity must be respected simply because we are human, then dignity must be maintained regardless of the process by which humans were created, and therefore the argument that genetic design threatens human dignity can be refuted. However, when we consider the reason why the value of human dignity arose, the above position can be refuted. Why should humans be respected, and what is the criterion for distinguishing between humans and non-humans? I believe that the criterion that distinguishes humans from other beings is “free will.” Inanimate objects have no inherent principles of behavior, and living things other than humans act according to their instincts, while humans have free will and can make their own decisions at every moment of choice. This is a key characteristic of humans, and it is the source of human dignity.
Why is genetic design problematic from the perspective of free will? Sandel’s book presents a case involving cat cloning. The owner of a cat named Nicky asks a company to clone Nicky, and is satisfied with the identical cat they create. This case is simple, but it shows that human genetic design can infringe on free will. The owner expects the newly cloned Nicky to look exactly like the previous Nicky, have the same habits, and behave similarly. In other words, the cloned Nicky is not respected as a living being, but is the result of the goal of making it resemble the previous Nicky. Extending this to human genetic design, parents design their children with the goal of having them possess certain abilities, appearances, and personalities so that they can live according to the future planned by their parents. This goal influences the various choices their children will face in the future, which means that their free will is infringed upon.
Those who support genetic design may question whether human dignity truly comes from free will. If dignity comes from free will, then humans in a vegetative state or other conditions where they have no free will should be deprived of their dignity. However, even in such cases, we instinctively feel that dignity should not be taken away. Why is that? In the case of a vegetative state, there is a possibility of regaining free will. Although it is currently impossible to determine and they may only be living organisms in a biological sense, there is a possibility that they may regain free will in the future. Furthermore, even in cases of brain death, dignity is granted based on social demands. This is different from the dignity of humans with free will, as brain-dead individuals have almost no possibility of regaining free will, but they are respected as human beings regardless of their free will. If dignity is excluded, ethical problems arise in which human dignity itself could be disregarded. Therefore, society demands dignity even in the absence of free will. This is not inevitable, but rather something that is respected by demand, as confirmed by the possibility of organ donation in cases of brain death.
Conclusion
The genetic design of children harms the value of human dignity. Thanks to free will, humans can make rational choices rather than instinctive ones at every moment of choice, and they should be respected for their mere existence. However, the genetic design of children is excessive interference by parents in all aspects, including appearance, ability, and personality, and affects the exercise of their free will. In the words of Professor Sandel, there are two kinds of love that parents have for their children: “changing love” and “accepting love.” Genetic design is an excessive expression of the desire to change one’s children and is the result of excessive interference with their free will. Therefore, I am opposed to genetic design of children.
