The Case against ‘The Case against Perfection’

Michael Sandels essay The Case against Perfection (The Atlantic Monthly, April, 2004) is basic wholey a bear reveal that opposes the mind of transmittable sweetening primarily via copy. Sandels places forwards his idea of what is harm with inherited design. He admitted its benefits, just now he similarly tried to show how bad it could be allow re-create and inherited technology. Sandels starts with a thesis that states his stand over the subject matter. His choice of talking to even in the kickoff sentence alone shows his opposition to the idea of using patrimonial engineering to enhance the next generation youth of a yoke..Throughout the text, the readers find Sandels pondering on perspetive of the advocates of inheritable engineering, talking around the possibilities of the technology and past giving the possible good set up that the diement of the technology might bring. He then talks close to the how the antithetic popular anesthetises against ancest ral engineering may be invalid. He defends the stand of genetic engineers, hardly non to really defend it, nonwithstanding altogether to show why around grounds some(prenominal) parties atomic number 18 against it ar not valid at all. Then, he would evidence the racing shell which he believes is the much valid reason why genetic engineering should not be drilld to enhance the early generations.Sandels attacks the topic by presenting its different facets using analogies and logical reasoning. Even a s he terminate the essay, he quoted what he must adjudge believed to be the stronges and the most tempting reasons why genetic engineering should be given a calamity to be used to enhance future generations perfect muscles, right height, intelligence, and license from diseases. Yet, standardised in the separate dissevers, Sandels only refuted the idea of genetic engineering, however, his he failed to lay in details his counter against the satnd of the last auth or he quoted.In his attempt to show all the sides of the issue to avoid macrocosm biased, Sandels showed clearly how the idea of the advocates of genetic engineering works. But most of the time, he is unable to discuss clearly why the idea of the advocates he credit rating the different parts of the essay atomic number 18 wrong. In some cases, he had problems with reasoning.Let us start with the jump issue he increase in the first split up. The last part of the paragraph justs strong, but there are flaws in his reasoningIn liberal societies they reach first for the language of autonomy, frankness, and individual rights. But this part of our moral vocabulary is bedfast equipped to address the hardest inquirys posed by genetic engineering.This reasoning is give care an ad hominem, only, it does not attack the speaker but the words which cross the basis of the liberal societies in advocating genetic engineering. In ad hominem, the consideration attacks the speaker kind o f than the reason, but here the words autonomy, fairness, and individual rights appear to be the sources f the blood and are the ones universe attacked or else of the literary careens that are according to Sandels, founded on these words. Instead of focusing on the reasons, he preempted the channels of the believers of genetic engineering by claiming there is something wrong with how we repair the autonomy, fairness and equal rights.It erect further be out-of-the-way(prenominal)-famed that Sandels himself refuted the oppositions to genetic engineering that are based on autonomy. He did not define clearly what he meant by autonomy in his essay. Moreover, instead of strengthening the position of the opposing parties that base their arguments on autonomy. What he beef up sort of was the stand of genetic engineers when he made analogies between cloning and using botox and steroids.When he countered the argument nearly autonomy, the first reason he gave why the argument was not convincing isit wrongly implies that oblivious a designing parent, infantren are free to study their characteristics for themselves. But no(prenominal) of us makes his genetic inheritance. The alternative to a cloned or genetically intensify peasant is not one whose future is unbound by event talents but one at the mercy of the genetic lottery. (par. 5)His point seems rather ambiguous, for what is the whizz of the second sentence of the excerpt? How cigarette an enhanced kidskin be at the mercy of the genetic lottery when the parents necessitate already determined the childs genes? Moreover, he mentioned that the argument has a wrong implication that children whose parents did not choose their genes for them are free to choose their characteristics for themselves.The argument states that parents disallow the rights of the child to an open future by choosing a genetic structure of the kid in advance. His does not imply that children can choose their genes. It only t akes to say that if their genes are not pre-selected by their parents, they can choose their career paths based on what pleases them and not based on the genes that their parents designed for them, and he even explained it this focusing.In paragraph 8, he drags the issue to theology, that claiming that it is a matter of moral. He makes it appear that the only way to resolve this issue is by consulting theological thoughts about the issue. He is pushing the idea that this issue can only be resolved if we look into the moral billet of nature and proper stance of the human beings toward the given world.He may be right that this is a moral issue, but the grounds on which he based his arguments seem not well founded. This part of his written report appears more like a moralistic phantasm. He seems to be put up the readers for something that would discuss how things should be and let that be the basis of the argument against genetic engineering or be the argument itself.In paragraph 9, he made a generalization, E reallyone would welcome a gene therapy to amend muscular dystrophy and to reverse the debilitating muscle loss that comes with grey-haired age. This is perhaps a swift overview or an overgeneralization. How could he be positive(predicate) that everyone would be open to the idea? He did not even present any survey to support his claim at least inductively. This is a sweeping statement that can be toppled any who would say that he does not welcome a gene therapy to alleviate muscular dystrophy or to reverse the debilitating muscle loss.In the corresponding paragraph, he made weak relation. The author claimed The widespread use of steroids and other feat-improving medicates in professional sports suggests that many athletic supporters will be eager to avail themselves of genetic enhancement. Logically speaking, it does not follow that though A and B incur similarities, what applies to A will apply to B. Though his claim may be true, he fails to make the necessary connections to establish a strong analogy between genetic engineering and performance enhancers.Again, as he had through with(p) in the earlier paragraphs, in paragraph 11, Sandels presents an argument against genetic engineering and refutes itIt might be argued that a genetically enhanced athlete, like a drug-enhanced athlete, would pick up an unfair advantage over his unenhanced competitors. But the fairness argument against enhancement has a fatal flaw it has always been the case that some athletes are better endowed genetically than others, and yet we do not consider this to undermine the fairness of competitive sports.Here, mentions that the fatal flaw in the argument is that there have always been athletes who are disadvantaged because some athletes are better endowed. That some athletes are better endowed than others is true, but that this fact is a fatal flaw is the flawed idea. This is a case of fallacy of relevance. Being genetically or drug enhanced i s very different from being genetically endowed by nature. A somebody endowed by nature with genes that make him competitive may have an advantage over those who are not endowed, but both have the equal chance to enhance their abilities through practice.However, it must be considered that an athlete is more likely genetically endowed than not. Hence, the biggest factor is not the inborn abilities of the athlete, but perhaps the preparedness of the athlete for a contest. If an athlete is drug enhanced or genetically enhanced, he may not postulate to practice or train as hard to achieve the results he wants. Therefore, Sandels conclusion that if genetic development in sports is ethically offensive, it should be for motives other than fairness is invalid.In paragraph 14, Sandels proposes deuce reasons why we should worry about bioengineering Is the scenario troubling because the unenhanced shortsighted would be denied the benefits of bioengineering, or because the enhanced crocke d would in some way be dehumanized? Above this is his belief that worry about access ignores the moral status of enhancement itself. In his argument, Sandels commits a fallacy of presumption, specifically, a fallacy of dilemmas.He limits the situation to two negative scenario the poor cannot hand the cost of genetic enhancement and the rich who can afford lead dehumanized. The question is, what evidences point to the situations he is state? What he is saying may be plausible, but he is not able to develop it logically to make the premises strong and firm. Limiting his choices to only two scenarios makes it appear that there is nothing more to bioengineering than deprivation of the poor of it and the dehumanisation of the rich.This reasoning in any case makes it appear that only the rich may be able to access genetic enhancement. Furthermore, he limited the tern dehumanization to the rich. This poses a sort of bias to those who can afford it, when earlier in the paper he was t alking about athletes who might access genetic enhancement the way they do performance enhancement drugs.Towards the end of paragraph 14, Sandels had a firm claim that the fundamental question is not how to figure equal access to enhancement but whether we should aspire to it in the first place. This is a misleading notion of presumption. He makes this assumption and lets the evidences suit it rather than conclude based on empirical data and logical analysis. It seems that only because the fundamental question is not how to ensure equal access, then the major(ip) concern is whether we should desire for it (bioengineering) in the first place. What he is saying may be true, but the way he develops it makes his reasoning invalid. It weakens his propositions.He repeats the same fallacy in paragraph 18 when he claimed that the real question about growth hormones is not its availability but whether we want to extend in a society where the parents spend for genetic enhancement. In his w ord of honor about the possible solutions to problems of unequal access to bioengineering, he made it sound all too simple for the government to subsidize the demands even of the poor.He did not realize that had the governments of different countries the money or funds, they would rather use that money to make sure nobody gets hungry, and not on high-priced genetic enhancement that does not have any promise to pen people from hunger based on any study. He created a scenario that seemed too easy to happen just to let his idea stand out. His proposition is perhaps a more important question, but the way he brings it out hurts the validity of his arguments.Another issue on his parole of genetic enhancement is the ability of the parents to choose the sex of their child. In the earlier paragraphs he would always state the case of something that is already prevalent and then compare it with genetic engineering. Here, he only mentioned that where folk remedies failed, genetic enhancemen t or bioengineering can be of help.Through bioengineering, a couple can choose the sex of the offspring. He pointed out in his watchword about this matter that choosing the sex of the offspring somehow removes the chip inedness when the child comes. The child not longer comes as a gift, but more like a planned object. He did not criticize how folk remedies alike tend create the same effect whether they are effective or not. It is clear ere how he leans toward a bias in attacking genetic engineering.Sandels also had reasons that are too far flung from reality. Consider his argument in paragraph 30. While it is true that effort is not everything, it would not have been possible that a basketball paler who trains harder than Michael Jordan would be a mediocre player. It would register a lot to be more than like Jordan and to earn more than he did, but one who trains harder he (Jordan) did would not remain mediocre. He is using an impossible scenario to create his point. And that do es not make much sense at all.In paragraph 40, Sandels verbalize that Genetic manipulation seems somehow worse more intrusive, more contraband than other ways of enhancing performance and seeking success. There is a grave error here suggesting that all efforts of parents in seeking to enhance the performance of their children so they may become successful are bad, intrusive, or sinister. What of parents who personally train their children? What of parents who lets their children attend to trainings that they want to attend, because they (the children) want to be successful in that endeavor? Would that be sinister? Maybe that is not what he means, but that is the message his paper seems to be putting across. It could have been better if he specified which ways of enhancing the childs performance are sinister.In paragraph 53, Sandels wants to pint out that genetic engineering does not only violate religious morals, but also secular moralsThe moral stakes can also be described in s ecular terms. If bioengineering made the story of the self-made man come true, it would be difficult to view our talents as gifts for which we are indebted, rather than as achievements for which we are responsible. This would transform three get a line features of our moral landscape humility, responsibility, and solidarity.He denies religion in this part, but he talks about gifts for which we are indebted. The question now, is, to whom are we indebted? fetching our talents as gifts inevitably leads us to a proposition that involves religion, for where will the gift come from? If the gifts were merely from nature, to whom do we owe humility, responsibility, and solidarity?He further argues that genetic engineering takes away these three. He forgets to consider that the characteristics of a person are but secondary. What a person, whether genetically endowed or not, savors most is feel itself. With or without genetic enhancement, a person has reasonability to his fellowmen. In th e same way, whether genetically enhanced or not, a person may be crowing or humble depending on how the parents reared him. Solidarity has nothing to do with genetic enhancement or endowment. People unite for a common cause, for love and for peace.His argument is presuming that genetically enhanced individuals are incapable of humility, responsibility, and solidarity, but he did not develop the issue logically. If his statements in paragraph 53 were factual, why did he have to mention, The more we become masters of our genetic endowments, the greater the substance we bear for the talents we have and the way we perform?Immediately following this, he mentioned about the future scenario in which a basketball player may be blamed now for missing rebound, but in the future for being short. Here is another reasoning error, for who would hire a petite basketball player if not for his exceptional skill? Basketball payers are usually tall, hired for height and skill, so what is saying is another far flung argument.The last argument in favor f genetic engineering he mentioned pondered on the possibilities of enhancing IQ and physical abilities of children. All he said about this is, But that promise of mastery is flawed. It threatens to banish our appreciation of flavour as a gift, and to leave us with nothing to wander or behold outside our own will. If it were indeed flawed, then how is it flawed? How can it banish our appreciation of life as a gift? How can he say hat it leaves us with nothing to behold and affirm with our free will when he himself talked about being endowed by nature?He may be right to think that cloning and other forms of genetic engineering have setbacks, but his essay provided arguments that are pro genetic engineering that he failed to counter effectively. ReferencesSandel, M. J. (April 2004). The Case Against Perfection. Retrieved 9 April 2008, fromhttp//www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0056.html)