Michael Sandel The Case Against Perfection Summary

In Michael Sandels’s paper, The Case against Perfection, he argues against genetic enhancement. Sande’ls argues that the use of bioengineering, and genetic enhancement comprises individual’s talents and abilities. He reasons that without the prevalent use of genetic engineering technologies currently, individuals have peace of mind that’s faults may be simply due to their genetic makeup, something which is out of our control. Additionally, Sandel, compares genetic engineering technology, to old eugenics. Sandel, ultimately views any form genetic engineering morally impermissible stating “the impulse genetically engineer a more perfect generation is still morally problematic, even if we imagine that such engineering is done with any correction

at all”. Sandel, argues that one of the problems with genetic engineering, is that its take away from the idea of giftedness, and talent.

He explains that the ultimate reason we admire individuals is based on talent rather than effort alone. He gives the example of the example of “mediocre basketball player”, who puts in all of effort, but is not as talented as Michael Jordan. Sandel compares genetic enhancement, to steroid use, for enhancement in professional athletes, in which he states, “the problem with genetically altered athletes is that it corrupts athletic competition and natural talents.”. Additionally, Sandel views genetic engineering, as tool of hyper-parenting. He reasons that, by allowing parents to pick and choose which they desire in their child, they are transforming love, rather than accepting love. In which, sandel defines transforming love as “molding” one’s child into how they turn out, as opposed to accepting love, which beholding the child to what they become. (slide 20). While a balance of the two is ideal, favouring to towards the transforming love more than accepting love, would result in “..., badgering, and finally rejecting” (Sandel, 433). For these reasons, Sandel ultimately reasons that genetic enhancement is not morally

permissible.

In addition, Sandels raises questions about the “ethics of giftedness”. He views children as gifts, rather that should not be modified, in order to gain the parents love and acceptance. Seeing children as gifts, who should not be changes ties into the concept of the “Openness to the unbidden”. The idea, that children are gifts given, and not product for parents to consciously design, allows us to have an “openness to the unbidden”, the notion of accepting the unexpected things that come in life, without intentionally asking for them. The use of genetic enhancement, would take away from the openness to the unbidden”, would “take transform three key features of moral landscapes: humility, responsibility and solidary” (438). With regard to humility, sandel gives the example of a parent not being able to choose certain aspects of a child future, such as their teacher. These actions allow parents to “…abide the unexpected, to live with dissonance, to rein in the impulse to control” (Sandel, 439). Similarly, with regards to responsibility, Sandel reasons that with genetic engineering, humans become more responsible for their traits, because the our now more of the creator. Lastly, with regards to solidary, sandel argues that the genetic engineering” … make it harder to practise moral sentiments that social solidary requires”. Furthermore, Sandel clarifies that his idea of “ethics of giftedness”, the “openness to the undbidden” does not mean parents should not seek medical intervention when necessary, as this “healing sickness or injury does override a child’s natural capacity but permits them to flourish”