Bioengineering
has opened up paths towards perfection. With this technology, people are able
to select certain genes that they want to express, thus creating the right kind
of kid they want. In The Case Against
Perfection, Michael Sandel compares this use of biotechnology to
hyperparenting, where parents choose the desirable traits that make the kids
excel in sports, academic careers, or other areas. He argues that morally
speaking, bioengineering is not much different from other lower-tech parenting
methods. People who criticize bioengineering as too excessive and dominating
over the children should also question those parents who used high-pressure and
success-driven practices.
However,
is there a clear line between the two child-rearing methods? Sandel wrote that even
though most people did see a clear difference between genetic enhancements and the
low-tech parenting, the difference is insignificant. I disagree with him
because while the parents in both cases may have the same motives, genetic
enhancement is more extreme.
Consider
the Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother
written by Amy Chua. She raised her children in a strict manner. While this
parenting method was controversial, she said on her website that she firmly
believed that it was in her children's best interest. If she could choose
happiness or success for her children, she would pick happiness. This is
different from genetic enhancements even if the motives are similar. If a
parent decides to make the child extremely tall through genetic enhancements so
that he may be able to succeed in sports, the parent is changing the child's
physical makeup. There is no reversing back to an ordinary height for the child.
Amy Chua may be raising her children strictly, but she worked with what the
nature has provided and did not seek to break its rules. She described how she
was often in conflict with her second child, but she adjusted for the conflict.
In genetically altered children, there will be no room for adjustments. If the
child is unhappy with the way the parents made them, he or she can only accept
it with no choice.
Thus,
the difference between genetically enhanced children and low-tech hyperparenting
methods is how much choice the children have. With harsh and strict parents,
the children still grow up in their own unique way as their own choices and
their parents' wishes mingled and interacted to form their character. With
bioengineering, the children lost their ability to make their own choices. They
may dislike their height, the color of their eyes, or their own personality
because that is what their parents made them, and not due to chance of nature. This
is similar to Sandel's overall argument, where he suggested that the drive to
perfection will destroy our appreciation of the gift of life. However, I don't
believe that the hyperparenting familiar in our world today is morally similar
to bio enhancements because children are still able to make their own choices.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-perfection/302927/
http://amychua.com/
1 comment:
I find it interesting that you claim hyper-parenting to be more acceptable than bioengineering because it gives children more choice. However one must ask - did children ever have a choice in their genetic make up in the first place? Everyone in the world has been dealt a hand by fate, a hand we did not choose. Some children happen to be born into poor, struggling families, while others are blessed with affluence and wealth from the beginning. Some naturally lend themselves to mathematics, while others can paint a beautiful sunset with ease. Perhaps the issue here is not what is chosen for the child, but who chooses it.
You raise another interesting point about hyper-parenting giving the child more choice than bioengineering. Consider two different scenarios: in the first, the hyper-parent has strongly pressured his or her child to succeed academically – the child must study for hours on end, follow a strict regime, and how dare he even think about going out and spending time with friends! What if he wanted to be a star basketballer, but his hopes and dreams were shattered by his controlling parents? On the other hand, imagine parents choosing to genetically enhance their unborn child, causing him to be stronger, taller, and more intelligent. Then, once the child is born, the parents allow him to flourish in whichever way he wants. With these improved traits, the child will have a wider variety of things he could potentially accomplish. Instead of limiting choices, the parents will have opened up a broad scope of possibilities for their child. While it could be argued that parents who would be willing to go to extreme lengths and genetically modify their child probably have great expectations for him, and thus would then pressure their child into achieving certain things. However, we cannot say that bioengineering is in itself wrong. Rather than restricting choice in a child, I believe that genetic enhancement actually increases choice for those who receive it.
Post a Comment