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
enhancement. I will argue that genetic enhancement is necessary, since we have a moral obligation to allow one to be the best they can possibly be; moreover, we already alter humans through the environment and we utilize medicine to prolong one’s life and prevent disease. My first argument for the use of genetic enhancement is that we have a moral obligation to allow one to be the best they can possibly be.
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
not the driver, since the driver’s car did all the work. The driver only utilized what the mechanics and engineers provided for him. Therefore, in society we already have a situation in which we celebrate the person rather than his pharmacist (mechanic etc). The second point I would like to bring to light is the fact that one’s surroundings and experiences can alter people’s biology indefinitely. Parents in particular utilize the environment to shape their child’s behavior and mentality. Moreover, parents use games and activities to enhance their children’s memory, intelligence and train their children to behave in certain ways. Savulescu examines the findings of a study conducted on rats: “The most striking example of this is a study of rats that were extensively mothered and rats that were not mothered. The mothered rats showed genetic changes (changes in the methylation of the DNA) that were passed on to the next generation…” (Savulescu 446) It is evident that the environment effects people in the present and even alters the biology of future generations. Since we allow parents to use the environment to improve their child’s opportunities in life, genetic enhancement should also be allowed. Both actions result in the same thing, self-improvement, which is one of the prima facie duties Ross adheres to. Ross states that, “Some (duties) rest on the fact that we can improve our own condition in respect of virtue or of intelligence. These are the duties of self-improvement.” (Ross 116) The improvement of oneself as a whole is of the upmost importance. By blockading a path to self-improvement (genetic enhancement) one is going against humanity’s prima facie duty. However, Sandel believes that by engaging in genetic enhancement you deprive parents of the opportunity to develop an “openness to the unbidden.” This lack of development would inhibit humility from developing and promote arrogance and hubris (excessive pride). (Sandel 433) Essentially, what Sandel is trying to convey is that if we have mastery over what should be uncontrollable, “the unbidden”, we will develop excessive arrogance and lack proper humility. I do not see this occurring, since we already have disparity between one another and controlling this difference would not change the fact. Instead of blaming our parent’s genes or God for our faults, we would blame our lack of money or the quality of the physicians. Therefore, I choose the option (enhancement) in which we have the possibility to alter the un-alterable. My final argument for genetic enhancement is the fact that we allow medical intervention to prolong one’s life and treat disease; therefore, we should accept enhancement, since it serves the same purpose. An example of medical intervention would be the use of preventative medicine like vaccinations. These vaccines are used to provide immunization to strains of harmful diseases to reduce the chance of falling ill. By accepting vaccination, we are accepting intervention into our natural life expectancy (prolonging one’s life). Therefore, society should allow us to genetically modify our bodies to the point where diseases cease to affect us, as it would be the same as taking a vaccine. Consequently, when you choose to get immunized you are accepting an unnatural act to affect your natural life. Sandel claims that medical intervention does not desecrate nature, but honors it. Healing injury and sickness allows one to flourish. (Sandel 433) I would like to take Sandel’s statement and replace medical intervention with genetic enhancement. If we are unable to accept enhancement to prolong life then we must not accept safety devices such as airbags, seatbelts, and guardrails etc. All of these devices are tools used to extend our life span, much like enhancement could be utilized. Moreover, it coincides with Ross’s notion of the prima facie duty to prevent harm (non-maleficence). (Ross 116) By accepting genetic enhancement we can prevent the cessation of activities, which promote general well-being and happiness, both of which are essential in order to flourish. Before I leave off, I would like to engage in some meta-discourse by posing a question to you. If you had the opportunity to undergo genetic enhancement solely for the purpose of self-improvement with no concern for cost, would you? I personally would undergo genetic enhancement since it would allow me to achieve more in my limited lifespan. Through enhancement I would be free from the fear of illness or disability. This would enable me to pursue some of the pleasures in life, without fear of repercussions, such as excitement (sky diving, base jumping) and so on. Additionally, I could pursue goals that would otherwise be unavailable to me, due to my physical or mental limitations. For example, I could be a professional athlete or singer, which are currently highly improbable career paths for my un-enhanced self. Overall, I feel that by undergoing enhancement I would open up a plethora of closed doors in my life, which would lead to a more fulfilling and enjoyable existence. To recapitulate, genetic enhancement is essential, since it fulfills humanity’s moral obligation to be the best one can possibly be. Additionally, we already engage in multiple forms of biological alteration such as using the environment to alter one’s mental capacities. Furthermore, we allow medical intervention to increase our lifespan, which could also be achieved through enhancement. However, that is not to say enhancement should be used for any and all purposes. I believe that it should only be used for reasons that concur with the notions of beneficence, non-maleficence and self-improvement. Therefore, the creation of super soldiers to conquer the world would be unacceptable, because it does not adhere to the concept of do no harm (non-maleficence). Accepting enhancement is accepting evolution, disavowing enhancement is stagnation