Review of The Case against Perfection

The American Journal of Bioethics, 2010

In his paper, Fan (2010) describes Confucian’s reflection on children as a gift and discusses the Confucian belief on enhancement of human genetic material within the context of ethical relativism. Also, he introduces Sandel’s ethics system (ethics of giftedness), explaining its inadequacy (among other things) in terms of strong Judeo-Christian influence. It is not our intention to defend or challenge the Confucian belief and Sandel’s ethics system. Instead, we explain the basic premises used by Orthodox Christians when reflecting on any problem, including this complex issue as well.

2012

This thesis is an analysis of the relationship between the concepts of chance, choice and responsibility in Michael Sandel's "The Case against Perfection" (2007). Sandel predicts that if genetic enhancements were introduced in the society, the social meaning of these concepts would change significantly and social solidarity would vanish. He argues that that if people were able to control their genome and the element of chance in the genetic lottery would be replaced with choice, individuals could be held responsible for their deficiencies. Thus, the societal motivation to share our wealth with the disadvantaged would be eroded. However, the philosophical premises in Sandel's argument remain obscure. Therefore, a new means for the philosophical assessment of Sandel's argument is introduced in my thesis. The method for the analysis is to examine the premises in Sandel's argument by comparing it to responsibility-sensitive egalitarian theories and their critique.

Medicine Studies, 2009

2009

Journal of Value Inquiry 45 (3): 279-291., 2011

I will explain why the ‘playing God’ objection, described in secular terms as the ‘desire for mastery’ objection, is incompatible with the current discussion in the fields of biology and evolutionary psychology. Specifically, I will argue that Sandel’s objection is unsound in light of Wheeler and Clark’s view of human nature: that it is conceived partly as a product of our own agency . This approach estimates that our desire to master our nature began the moment our ancestors started to construct niches that ultimately transformed the way we are. From a niche construction perspective, altering human nature by genetic engineering is not dehumanizing but rather is in accordance with the way humans are. We have always engineered our environment, which in turn shapes the architecture of the human mind - ultimately changing our DNA with no need of direct genetic manipulation.

2020

Abstract: Several authors, including Michael Sandel, distinguish between two different attitudes toward nature: mastery and giftedness. Giftedness is the superior attitude, Sandel argues, because it better accords with the values of humility, responsibility, and solidarity. And giftedness, in combination with these values, provides a rational basis for opposing the employment of genetic enhancement. Against this, I argue that talents and genetic endowment are more plausibly viewed as undeserved, that not everything undeserved is a gift, and that even if talents and endowment were gifts, this would not support a prohibition against pursuing genetic enhancement.

2016

Virtually, every field of human endeavor is encapsulated in the trend of scientific progress. The indices of the present progress in science are such that we can begin to talk of science as being at its crescendo. However, with these advancements and conquests, questions arises as to if humanity is really happy? Nowadays, this idea of continuous progress is seriously challenged. There has been a basic tension between the awareness of the ‘limit of growth ’ and the idea of ‘continuous progress’. It is within this context that this piece attempts to make unique enquiries. It first understands what genetic engineering is all about. Having understood its content and objective, it raises questions about its moral sense, however, with particular reference to human cloning.

Journal of Value Inquiry, 2011

With the advances in biomedical sciences over the last decade and the possibility of genetic interventions becoming less speculative, it is natural that ethical questions concerning this uncharted territory have moved into the focus of philosophical debates. It is now considered a possibility that we will reach a level of biotechnological knowledge that would provide the technical means to genetically intervene to cure and radically enhance human life in the near future, forming, as Allen Buchanan says, ''important biological characteristics of the human beings we choose to bring into existence.'' 1 Even if with current scientific sophistication, such prenatal enhancement techniques are not genuine possibilities, their possibility can alone be instructive in thinking about ethics and morality. 2 As Eduarto Mendieta has observed, biotechnology, and its application ''demand that we reflect on what it means to be human in an age in which human nature is up for grabs.'' 3

In this article I discuss one of the most significant areas of bioethical interest, which is the problem of moral enhancement. Since I claim that the crucial issue in the current debate on human bioenhancement is the problem of agency, I bring out and examine the conditions of possibility of self-understanding, acting subjects attributing responsible authorship for their actions to themselves. I shall argue that the very idea of moral enhancement, properly understood, fails to justify the claims that enhancing the “biological” factor that plays a part in the process of making moral choices, whether through biomedical or genetic interventions, will actually increase the probability of having “morally better future motives”.