Julian Savulescu's Argument Analysis

In “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings”, Julian Savulescu argues that genetic enhancement is morally obligatory in order for humanity to live a longer better life. However, this argument is opposed by philosopher Michael Sandel who feels that accepting one’s shortcomings enables us to develop virtues through adversity and giftedness. Another great philosopher W.D. Ross felt that humanity had prima facie (prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact) duties such as the duty of beneficence, self-improvement and non-maleficence. Moreover, these duties coincide with Savulescu’s argument for enhancement and provide the basis of my argument for
This notion stems from Ross’s prima facie duty of beneficence which states, “Some (duties) rest on the mere fact that there are beings in the world whose condition we can make better in respect of virtue, or of intelligence, or of pleasure. These are the duties of beneficence.” (Ross 115) Therefore, by choosing not to enhance is contrary to one’s duty of beneficence. For example, the lazy parent scenario which sees a child with an average trait who could have an exceptional trait, if the child’s parents pay for an inexpensive genetic enhancement. The child’s parents fail to do so, resulting in the loss of extreme potential. (Savulescu 445) Consequently, this results in a loss for the child individually, as he or she will be unable to achieve their best possible state and to humanity as a whole. It is my belief that through the improvement of others society as a whole develops tremendously, because we all benefit from the giftedness of others (artists provide pleasure through their work etc.) Hence, by not fulfilling one’s duty of beneficence we fail to provide the proper conditions for society as a whole to flourish. However, Sandel states that, “as the role of enhancement increases, our admiration for the achievement fades—or, rather, our admiration for the achievement shifts from the player to his pharmacist.” (Sandel 431) Basically, by engaging in genetic enhancement you are inadvertently revoking your right to take credit for your accomplishments. This is a valid argument, however I feel that Sandel has not considered the use of tools in society to achieve feats. An example of this would be race car drivers. When a race car driver wins a race we typically celebrate the driver of the car, but what about the car (which represents genetic enhancement) itself? Based on Sandel’s notion, society should be celebrating the vehicle