Sandel discusses four areas in which scientists are developing capabilities for us not just correct for human biological deficiencies like disease, but to improve upon what is already normal and make us “better than well.” The first is physical strength: a gene therapy exists that can strengthen healthy muscles in mice. If applied to humans, then genetic enhancement could become the alternative to things like steroids. Second, a similar gene therapy exists for enhancing memory in mice, and human applications are easy to imagine. The third is growth hormones available to those who fall in the bottom one percentile in height, the questions then becoming what about those who are already considered average or tall? Finally, there is sex selection, which need not be conventionally controversial—one method involves merely filtering X-bearing vs. Y-bearing sperm—no embryo destruction necessary.
After discussing common ethical objections to these practices that he believes are ultimately insufficient, Sandel argues that such practices are problematic ultimately because they are “a way of answering a competitive society’s demand to improve our performance and perfect our nature.” There are two components to human performance: 1) natural talent (gifts), which are normally outside of our control, and 2) effort, which we can control. Genetic enhancement brings human giftedness under our control. In this way, it resembles eugenics. Sandel argues that the absence of coercion is ultimately irrelevant. He offer both religious and secular grounds for concern: “[t]o believe that our talents and powers are wholly our own doing is to misunderstand our place in creation, to confuse our role with God's . . . If bioengineering made the myth of the "self-made man" come true, it would be difficult to view our talents as gifts for which we are indebted, rather than as achievements for which we are responsible.”
Sandel then outlines practical consequences of this mentality: first, parents’ abilities to choose the traits of their children removes “openness to the unbidden”—the love for a child that accepts them for who they are. Second, failures become always a product of our genetic choices, and never natural weakness. Third, it removes the basis for solidarity in forms of charity and generosity: normally, natural talent is a factor in one’s success that lies outside of one’s control, unlike effort and hard work. But, if even natural talent is the result of human agency and choice, then the basis for a recognition that some factors are outside one’s control is diminished.
I was at church recently when Tim Keller was giving a sermon about social justice, and he coincidentally made a similar point: If we recognize that what we have is a product of what God has given us, including our natural abilities, it is easier to understand why God would want us to be generous with the fruits of our labor, because it is ultimately derived from Him.
Is Sandel right? Or is our reaching this technology just another product of what God has given us? That is the attitude we take towards modern medicine. Even vaccines are designed simply to prevent what is less than optimal. But does the “better than well” threshold change the picture when it comes to genetics? Another question is what happens when others don’t see it that way? Is it reasonable to be concerned that social solidarity will be hurt by this?
Or is the problem rooted in society’s increasing demands on people’s performance? This is a whole other topic of discussion in and of itself, but I find the connection fascinating.
What do you think? Sound off in the comments below!
Sandel, Michael
J. "The Case Against Perfection: What's wrong with designer children,
bionic athletes, and genetic engineering." The Atlantic. Atlantic
Media Company, Apr. 2004. Web. Mar. 2016. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-perfection/302927/>.
The objections this man raises are consequentialist, which leaves the question open, what if the consequences of NOT using genetic engineering are worse than the consequences of USING genetic engineering. For example: what if you could make people immune to disease and death by using genetic engineering. You would essentially be responsible for the deaths of every human being on the planet by withholding that. So which consequence is worse?
ReplyDeleteThe objections this man raises are consequentialist, which leaves the question open, what if the consequences of NOT using genetic engineering are worse than the consequences of USING genetic engineering. For example: what if you could make people immune to disease and death by using genetic engineering. You would essentially be responsible for the deaths of every human being on the planet by withholding that. So which consequence is worse?
ReplyDelete