Savulescu's Argument Of The Moral Obligation
I’ll begin by looking at Savulescu’s strong belief of the moral obligation to genetically modify humans. Recent studies have shown there are early indicators, in our genes, that determine certain aspects of our future characteristics. Savulescu states we are morally obligated to treat and prevent diseases. This is viewed as a medical intervention because we are promoting the child’s health. With our advances in technology, he also believes we are morally obligated to engage in genetic enhancement. This argument is seen as a non-medical intervention because the alterations are thought of as unnecessary and favor the child’s well-being rather than their health. We treat diseases for the purpose to promote health which thus adds to our well-being.
…show more content…
Typically, genetic engineering is viewed as a drive for mastery which deviates from the appreciation of nature and the gift of life (Sandel 9). Sandel believes it is against our human nature to tamper with genetics because it strips us of our humility. For example, parents are supposed to nurture and love their kids but genetically modifying them takes away that relationship. Children are a precious gift and should be accepted for who they are, not for what society dictates is “perfect”. Strengthening his argument, Sandel brings our attention to two types of love: accepting and transformative. A parent who displays accepting love is “open to the unbidden” of their child and loves them for who they are (Sandel 11). They focus more on the being of their child rather than their well-being. Alternatively, transformative love seeks to change the child assuming something is wrong with them in the first place. As one can see, this type of love is similar to germline engineering, in that its focus is on well-being. The problem that Sandel discusses is how parents are unable to maintain a balance between the acceptance and need for success from their child. A parent’s need to mold their children’s lives leads to the larger problem of hyper-parenting. Oftentimes, they get caught up in setting their child up for success and perfecting them. This brings us back to the point
Typically, genetic engineering is viewed as a drive for mastery which deviates from the appreciation of nature and the gift of life (Sandel 9). Sandel believes it is against our human nature to tamper with genetics because it strips us of our humility. For example, parents are supposed to nurture and love their kids but genetically modifying them takes away that relationship. Children are a precious gift and should be accepted for who they are, not for what society dictates is “perfect”. Strengthening his argument, Sandel brings our attention to two types of love: accepting and transformative. A parent who displays accepting love is “open to the unbidden” of their child and loves them for who they are (Sandel 11). They focus more on the being of their child rather than their well-being. Alternatively, transformative love seeks to change the child assuming something is wrong with them in the first place. As one can see, this type of love is similar to germline engineering, in that its focus is on well-being. The problem that Sandel discusses is how parents are unable to maintain a balance between the acceptance and need for success from their child. A parent’s need to mold their children’s lives leads to the larger problem of hyper-parenting. Oftentimes, they get caught up in setting their child up for success and perfecting them. This brings us back to the point