But removing coercion does not vindicate eugenics. Was the old eugenics objectionable only insofar as it was coercive? Or is there something inherently wrong with the resolve to deliberately design our progeny's traits. This draws it disturbingly close to eugenics. The hyperparenting familiar in our time represents an anxious excess of mastery and dominion that misses the sense of life as a gift. Bioengineering gives us reason to question the low-tech, high-pressure child-rearing practices we commonly accept. But, morally speaking, the difference is less significant than it seems. Genetic manipulation seems somehow worse - more intrusive, more sinister - than other ways of enhancing performance and seeking success. Later, discussing reproductive technologies, he states: "Some see a clear line between genetic enhancement and other ways that people seek improvement in their children and themselves. Sandel specializes in finding the inconsistency in moral and ethical arguments and positions - a tactic he uses here to dismiss such familiar grounds as fairness as a basis for prohibiting certain uses of biotechnology - and he makes instead a case that the drive to master nature, including human nature, and to perfect it through the use of technology undermines an appreciation of the gifted - and, therefore, imperfect - character of human powers and achievements, and prompts us to recognize that not everything in the world is open to whatever use we may desire or devise. His grasp of the science is sound, and he manages for the most part to skirt the use of religious principles, which he acknowledges vary from religion to religion (and even within religions - consider the views of fundamentalist Christians versus those of more 'moderate' Protestants on the subject of abortion), relying instead on pitting what he terms "the ethic of willfulness and the biotechnological powers it has spawned" against "the ethic of giftedness". Strong words, but he defends them with tight logic and a thorough examination of the history and purpose of the technology. In each case, he concludes that such use is morally objectionable. He dissects four examples of the use of our new-found power of biotechnology: muscle enhancement memory enhancement growth-hormone treatment and reproductive technologies that allow parents to choose the sex and some genetic traits of their children. In this essay, with characteristically clear and penetrating analysis, he argues that "the genomic revolution has induced a kind of moral vertigo", and that we are right to be troubled by such issues as human cloning and genetic engineering for improved human characteristics and performance. Bush established to make recommendations concerning stem-cell research, among other issues. He is a member of The President's Council on Bioethics, which George W. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University (where he teaches moral philosophy), is one of the deepest thinkers of this generation. Sandel's article, 'The Case Against Perfection', in the April 2004 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. Anyone who cares about the moral and social implications of genomics, genetic engineering and biotechnology should read Michael J.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |