14

A medical ethicist recently proposed that selecting (and possibly engineering) certain traits into our children is not just morally permissible but desirable:

Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a "moral obligation" as it makes them grow up into "ethically better children".

The expert in practical ethics said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to "harm themselves and others".

I am curious what schools of thought there are in the philosophical community (or individual viewpoints) regarding this issue.

Is any sort of interference morally problematic? (Many would think so intuitively, especially within religious communities, but intuition can be wrong.)

If selection and screening are okay, is introducing new genes okay/desirable also--assuming that we know what the impact will be--or is there a fundamental difference between selecting between possibilities that already were going to occur, and creating people with a new genetic composition that they couldn't have acquired "naturally"?

Community
  • 1
Rex Kerr
  • 15,970
  • 1
  • 23
  • 46
  • I´m too unexperienced on ethics to give you a full answer, but I would question the right of the parents to influence their children in such a way. Also I could image it influences the relationship between parents and children in a bad way. A child is not a barbie-puppet but a living beeing, and as that, has a right to be itself, and a right not to be genetically changed. – Lukas Sep 27 '12 at 19:02
  • @Lukas - Why is it better to be yourself as created by random crossovers in your parents' DNA than yourself as created mostly by random crossovers, but with a few things put there intentionally to help make your life easier? Also, if children have a right to be themselves and not changed by their parents, why do we let parents teach their children anything? – Rex Kerr Sep 27 '12 at 19:22
  • The crucial point now is this: What is an "easier" life, and how are you going to measure it? Followed by: Is it an improvement for life, if it is made "easier"? To answer your latter question: I think that no institution should have so much power to intervene on the parents life and the childs education because noone really knows what a good education is. So: no institution should have the power to, and there won´t be any that knows how to anyways. Besides that, i think a lot of parents are bad at educating, but how would we change that? – Lukas Sep 27 '12 at 19:42
  • @Lukas - There are genetic markers that are highly correlated with criminal behavior (and seem to have something to do with impulse control). Might be easier to control your impulses and not end up in jail--we've already decided as a society that being in jail is not an improvement (that is part of the point of it...). Anyway, if parents get to intervene when we don't know what a good X is, why not let them intervene genetically? I'm trying to get at the general principles here...so far it all looks like special cases selected to yield the "right" answer. – Rex Kerr Sep 27 '12 at 19:55
  • 1
    Why is a correlation with criminal behavior always a bad thing. Was not Galileo considered a criminal and condemned of grave suspicion of heresy? – Kenshin Sep 27 '12 at 23:12
  • The number of homosexuals is highly correlated with the economic power of a city, but migrating a lot of homosexuals to a little village won´t boost the villages economy, why? Because it´s just correlated, not caused. There is now another term that is open to interpretation: "criminal", for I argue that there are things that what a government tags as "criminal" is arbitrary, since there are different opinions on ethics and morality. – Lukas Sep 28 '12 at 06:45
  • @Lukas - The conclusion being...what? Trying to extract causation from correlation plagues everything we do. Are you claiming that because there is necessarily some uncertainty and some degree of arbitrariness, intervention is necessarily bad? (If so, why?) – Rex Kerr Sep 28 '12 at 11:22

3 Answers3

1

Mew has given a very pragmatic answer, but doesn't raise the thorny philosophical problem. I'd like to add my two cents..

There a few problems with the genetic selection and modification of human beings. The biggest problem is the desacralizing of life. I have a small observation that I will probably develop more fully somewhere else, and that is this: With the desacralizing of life, death, sex, marriage, not only do we lose out on living meaningful lives, but we also lose out on the ability to know God, because ultimately the questions of objective meaning and purpose of life are inextricably intertwined with questions of the nature and existence of God. I think that this spiritual dulling of the senses, if I can put it that way, is already in progress across much of the "developed" world.

There are other problems too. For example, suppose we were to be able to design offspring who wouldn't suffer from any adverse health conditions. Would they be as empathetic to another person's suffering? I have to be clear, I don't want to sound glib about suffering (I myself have had more than my fair share of it). But we may have to admit that the elimination of suffering of all kinds cannot be the ultimate purpose of life, because if successful, it could change the very nature of life itself.

As for the article linked to above, again there are pragmatic reasons why it is unwise to screen embryos for potential personality flaws. But I'll just mention a more philosophical reason: Within the Christian view, an individual has free will. I have no doubt that people have different proclivities and weaknesses, but learning how to deal with these is a part of our human experience. It is what makes us unlike robots. In short, people who choose to turn their back on a religiously based arguments against these kinds of modifications merely because they are religiously based are showing a dangerous kind of cultural bias which is myopic and foolish. Humanity as we know it can morph into something less glorious in the blink of an eye.

Joebevo
  • 393
  • 2
  • 11
  • There seem to be a lot of leaps where I don't follow the logic. Why is sacralizing key if you claim that objective meaning and purpose of life is what is intertwined? Also, are you claiming that people who don't care much for marriage are not living meaningful lives (especially couples who have children etc.)? Does it follow that even if eliminating all suffering reduces empathy that we shouldn't try to reduce some? Are you claiming that selecting certain embryos over others somehow strips free will from those selected embryos? – Rex Kerr Mar 01 '14 at 08:57
  • Well, let me try my best at this. The sacred parts of our human experience can often be viewed as pointers to God. As we de-sacralize parts of our experience, we lose these pointers to God, and it is God who has endowed us with objective meaning and purpose, that is external to our own creation. I'm not saying that you cannot live a meaningful life, where the meaning is of your own making, but it just wouldn't be an externally imposed meaning, and a case can be made that this objective, external meaning is more robust to the vicissitudes of life. – Joebevo Mar 01 '14 at 09:26
  • "Does it follow that even if eliminating all suffering reduces empathy that we shouldn't try to reduce some?" Sure, I'd say we should eliminate suffering where we can, without creating any ripple effects that affect the human experience. My point here was mainly to counteract this humanistic notion of a utopia where all suffering ceases. That is not our prerogative. (A lot of humanists tend to make their summum bonum the alleviation of suffering at all costs. All I'm trying to say is: Let's not forget the cost of doing that.) – Joebevo Mar 01 '14 at 09:33
  • "Are you claiming that selecting certain embryos over others somehow strips free will from those selected embryos?" My point was that genetic screening of embryos such that certain personality flaws are selected against is a bad idea because it goes against the notion of people as responsible creatures. If a person does grow up to have certain undesirable traits, then it is all the more of a victory when they do overcome it. Selecting for traits artificially might in fact deny the fully developed person all the richness of the human experience, with its messiness and all. – Joebevo Mar 01 '14 at 09:42
  • Thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense. I can't say I agree, but at least I understand the argument you're making now. (Disagreements include: God isn't the only source of external meaning; I didn't say we'd eliminate all suffering so that's a non-issue; many undesirable traits (e.g. sloth) actually rob one of the richness of human experience.) – Rex Kerr Mar 01 '14 at 10:41
  • Regarding the question of meaning, I'd highly recommend Tim Keller's latest series on Questioning Christianity. His first talk explores this notion of God-given meaning and purpose. (http://www.redeemer.com/publicfaith/questioning_christianity.html) You may still disagree with him, but it's worth checking out. – Joebevo Mar 01 '14 at 11:23
  • Why does engineering make life less sacred? Or is it sacred? Is sacredness in a gene that can be removed? – Ben Welborn Aug 12 '16 at 19:54
1

Let me ask you this. Do you think the Cystic Fibrosis gene should be removed from human beings? It would sound reasonable to say yes. It turns out however that the Cystic Fibrosis gene could provide protection from Typhoid Fever. The disease Sickle Cell Anemia also provides protection against Malaria.

Suppose Malaria strikes a population in which Sickle Cell Anemia has been eradicated thanks to gene manipulation. This population will then have lower survival rates than a population of people who possess Sickle Cell Anemia, and have the extra protection against Malaria.

The point is that by selecting favorable traits, our population looses its diversity. But the more diverse a population is, the more likely the population will survive unexpected environmental changes. Because we cannot predict the future, we can't know what traits may be desirable in the future, and therefore we need encourage diversity to enhance the probability of survival.

Designer babies discourages diversity, and encourages parents to choose babies which conform to the social standards of the present time period only, to the detriment of the future of mankind.

Kenshin
  • 1,524
  • 1
  • 14
  • 27
  • 1
    I think that it is easier to argue that homozygous cystic fibrosis genes should be removed from human beings. You can keep the variants; just don't make the people with two copies suffer (i.e. fix one copy). Also, given that rare alleles are often thought of as desirable (hair and eye color being the most obvious and superficial examples thereof), and given that one could introduce other novel variations, I'm not sure that the it-reduces-diversity point is valid either. I think you need a more sophisticated argument to prove your case. – Rex Kerr Sep 27 '12 at 15:46
  • 1
    Sure remove the homozygous cystic fibrosis genes. There are several heterozygous cystic fibrosis genes that aren't asymptomatic. Should these be removed? You say that some rare alleles are often thought of as desirable, so what? Many rare alleles aren't thought of as desirable. The question is, are we smart enough to know which ones will be good for us in the future? The reducing diversity point is 100% valid despite your objections to the argument's sophistication. China's one child policy is an obvious example. The ratio of males to females is too big thanks to human selection. – Kenshin Sep 27 '12 at 23:06
  • You mention that one could "introduce" novel variations? What is your basis for this? The technology proposed is to choose the best mother-father combination produced, not to alter the child's genes directly. Therefore no new variations can be introduced. Therefore in the future, it is possible that certain genes like cystic fibrosis, could become extinct. Unless there is strict monitoring of how many children MUST inherit the heterozygous gene etc to prevent this. The question arises again, are humans smart enough to know how many cystic fibrosis heterozygotes we should have – Kenshin Sep 27 '12 at 23:25
  • People with cystic fibrosis have very low reproductive fitness. Also, what evidence or argument do you have that human preferences are worse than random, and produce less diversity than standard inheritance? Also, introducing novel variations is routinely done in other organisms (e.g. mice); it's likely only a matter of time before it will be safe and practical in humans--then the question will be whether it is moral or not, and if moral, whether it is stupid or not. – Rex Kerr Sep 27 '12 at 23:43
  • 1
    You are the one that must provide evidence that human choice is better than random I'm afraid. – Kenshin Sep 27 '12 at 23:44
  • My argument for why human preference is worse than random is as before. Humans prefer very similar traits. Most people prefer height, most people in china prefer boys etc. It is this common preference that reduces diversity. – Kenshin Sep 27 '12 at 23:45
  • The very article itself is about reducing diversity, and removing genes that correlate to criminal activity. But this shouldn't be done until all other correlations with criminal activity are also studied and found to be detrimental. I find this to be unlikely since these genes have survived the tough natural selection process. – Kenshin Sep 27 '12 at 23:49
  • So the elective modifications would be okay as long as it was a rare allele being favored and not a common one being favored even more?--anyway, this is turning into a debate, which is not the point of the site. (And note that by favoring natural selection, you are favoring likely misery and early death--and no children. As long as you're clear that this is what "natural selection" means. It's not a kind process.) In any case, I appreciate you sharing sharing your perspective. – Rex Kerr Sep 27 '12 at 23:54
  • I agree the more common the gene being selected is, such as height, skin colour, the more likely the a selection choice will effect the population adversely. If we start gene selecting, it will have to be tightly regulated so only genes that have been proven to provide no advantage to the population can be selected against. – Kenshin Sep 27 '12 at 23:56
  • Wouldn't decisions like that be up to the parent? And if they opt for an intelligen baby, certainly that child would be better informed and make better decisions about those risks for the... grandchildren. – Ben Welborn Aug 12 '16 at 19:52
-2

The Dao De Jing 57 (Lin Yutang translation) says:

The more prohibitions there are,
   The poorer the people become.
The more sharp weapons there are,
   The greater the chaos in the state.
The more skills of technique,
   The more cunning things are produced.
The greater the number of statutes,
   The greater the number of thieves and brigands.

Therefore the sage says:
   I do nothing and the people are reformed of themselves.
   I love quietude and the people are righteous of themselves.
   I deal in no business and the people grow rich by themselves.
   I have no desires and the people are simple
      and honest by themselves.

That's before the "magical taoism", so it may be interpreted in materialistic (scientific) terms.

Biology shows that most social species have come to ritualize violence inside the group, reducing its destructive power. We, as social animals, also have the instinct for peace naturally stronger then our instinct for war.

But most of the Western philosophy is rooted in monotheistic religion, where human beings are "evil" since Eve, and thus in need of "correction". This chapter of the Dao De Jing shows the opposite, the farther we go away from our true Nature, the poorer we become.

That's why laws in excess ruin a country, and too much "wisdom" and technology usually end up having deleterious consequences.

But massive propaganda is there to show us that the industrial world have "improved" us.

One needs to get out of the comfort of his home to see some of the last primitive people who still show our natural wisdom, health and beauty. But one needs to do this fast, because these people and their way of life are being destroyed day by day.

So, to put it shortly:

Technology used to alter Nature may easily develop against ourselves (or at least against the poor, who make up the majority).

Chapter 29 of the Dao De Jing (Giafu Feng and Jane English translation) pretty well sums it up:

Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.

The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it.
Rodrigo
  • 1,460
  • 14
  • 26
  • Before you wonder: I think that the downvotes are not because this is eastern philosophy (I like the passages), but because the question had asked for present views, which I read as contemporary authors and texts. Dao De Jing hardly qualifies for that. – Philip Klöcking Aug 13 '16 at 14:11
  • @PhilipKlöcking China STILL have 3 great philosophies: Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism. So, WHO said Taoism is "outdated"? If you need contemporary authors about Taoism, use Google. I know there are thousands of such texts. But none of them surpass the original. By the way, what helped me to understand its meaning wasn't "contemporary authors", but living unlettered Amerindian peoples. Maybe that's TOO MUCH philosophy for unprepared Western ears... – Rodrigo Aug 14 '16 at 09:08
  • Is it serious that a moderator in a Philosophy site studies THEOLOGY? I think THAT explains most of the flaws, not only on this site, but in most Western "civilization". – Rodrigo Aug 14 '16 at 09:26
  • 1
    Hey, keep cool. I haven't downvoted. I just wanted to explain why people might be alienated by an answer to a question that is asking for 'present views' that quotes texts that are hundreds of years old. I do perfectly understand that they are applicable (because of being universal) and I very much appreciate the wisdom contained in old chinese and indian texts. But in a SE, questions express a certain expectance and the answers should meet them. There are by far not enough questions even considering eastern philosophy, but if they don't, answering with it may be out of place. – Philip Klöcking Aug 14 '16 at 09:27
  • @PhilipKlöcking Knowledge is universal. The human species is the same for at least 100,000 years. And most of the Dao De Jing translations are from the XX century. So, of course the downvotes are "eurocentric" or similar. By the way, the original Dao De Jing is 2,500 years old. That's precisely why they are so wise. – Rodrigo Aug 14 '16 at 09:33
  • I think you should study and meditate more if you are that enraged because of every little nonunderstanding. Taking oneself not too serious is one core element of every eastern philosophy I am aware of. You are not fighting wars. And I am not your enemy. Try to be respectful. – Philip Klöcking Aug 14 '16 at 09:36
  • @PhilipKlöcking The Western philosophy has 1) destroyed most cultural diversity in the world; and 2) destroyed most of the world biodiversity. So, who's not fighting wars against ignorance and prejudice? Maybe you are not. Speak for yourself. And you are not the theology student I was talking about. – Rodrigo Aug 14 '16 at 09:41
  • 1
    Your other answer was not deleted because I disagreed with it, but because it did not answer the question. In the future I will leave a comment to explain, sorry about that. –  Aug 14 '16 at 13:25
  • @Keelan Of course it DID answer the question, but to know this requires some empathy. At least you could have let me compare its downvotes to this answer. – Rodrigo Aug 14 '16 at 20:33
  • This is not the place to discuss that, but I would be happy to explain this decision in chat or on meta. –  Aug 14 '16 at 20:53
  • And yet lifespans have increased by 50% or more since that passage was penned, and we are overall more comfortable, and we have computers and smartphones and stuff. This passage applies equally well to all technological advancements, and we have oodles of counterexamples to its message (along with oodles more where it's proven more accurate). Thus, it doesn't really address this question. – Rex Kerr Aug 14 '16 at 23:21
  • @RexKerr http://revistas.unisinos.br/index.php/perspectiva_economica/article/viewFile/pe.2012.81.02/861 See the abstract here, to find out some critics to your point of view. Lifespan increase is in large part due to child mortality reduction. But at the same time, our families with only 1 or 2 children makes hyper-protective mothers as well as paranoid, depressed infants (more and more controlled by mental drugs). If that's "progress" to you, then you really should read Furtado and Dupas. – Rodrigo Aug 15 '16 at 02:24
  • "Living in the East has, perhaps a corrupting influence upon a white man, but I must confess that, since I came to know China, I have regarded laziness as one of the best qualities of which men in the mass are capable. We achieve certain things by being energetic, but it may be questioned whether, on the balance, the things that we achieve are of any value. (...) in China, as compared to any white man's country, there was freedom for all, and a degree of diffused happiness which was amazing in views of the poverty of all but tiny minority." B. Russell, Eastern and Western Ideals of Happiness. – Rodrigo Aug 15 '16 at 17:13
  • @Rodrigo - We have simultaneously found ways to make our lives better (no polio! yay!) and worse (boring zero-exercise desk jobs all the time! boo!). That on balance we have not achieved great improvements in perceived quality of life does not answer my specific question. – Rex Kerr Aug 18 '16 at 22:31
  • @RexKerr If you believe that the sum is near zero. If changes for worse are more common than changes for better, then the daoist point of view apply. And in a world increasingly urban, overpopulated, polluted and economic unequal, with everybody more and more stressed and sedentary, with a less diversified diet every year, and yet under a crescent moralist pressure (look how many drugs children are taking to be "fitting the standards needed by school authorities") -- of course I see genetic engineering as a potential source to much more problems than solutions. That's just what daoists say. – Rodrigo Aug 19 '16 at 03:39
  • Iit's just a statement of orthodoxy: anything new is bad; this is new; therefore, this is bad. That is relevant, but I was looking for something that addressed the unique features of this issue. – Rex Kerr Aug 19 '16 at 03:49
  • Evolution spent millions of years to adapt us to our environment (including the social environment). Human being will always be too stupid to be able to improve on that adaptation. Is not that "anything new is bad", that's usually the case. But when it comes to something as complex as the interaction genotype/phenotype, then it most probably will be the case. You may see a parallel in the GMOs, where only the interests of the big companies are determining the future of our own health. Don't you think that'll be the case if they meddle with our genetics too? – Rodrigo Aug 19 '16 at 13:25