Last Name 1

Student’s Name

Instructor’s Name

Class Name

Assignment with Version Number

Date

Genetic Enhancement (GE) For Non-Medical Purposes Is Extremely Controversial,

Even When We Assume It's Safe, Effective, And Accessible. Is GE for Non-Medical

Purposes Morally Forbidden, Permissible, Or Obligatory? Explain and Defend Your

Answer.

Introduction

Genetic enhancement (GE) alters or improves a population's genetic makeup through

genetic engineering and related technologies. Genetic engineering (GE) use for non-

therapeutic goals, such as improving IQ or athletic performance, has generated heated debate

in recent years. While there is agreement that GE has the potential to improve people's health

and productivity, there is also agreement that there are serious ethical, sociological, and

philosophical considerations that must be addressed before moving further. Even if GE is

proven safe, effective, and easily accessible, it still raises numerous questions about how it

can change people's lives and the very definition of humanity. It's clear that there are many

facets to the genetic enhancement issue and that both proponents and detractors have valid

points to make. Here, we'll compare and contrast the perspectives of "Julian Savulescu and

Michael Sandel" on using GE for non-medical objectives. To fully understand GE's

consequences and make educated decisions about its application, it is necessary to analyze

the pros and cons from several angles. This essay discusses Genetic enhancement (GE). It
 Last Name 2

makes some conclusions on whether or not its use for non-medical purposes is morally

forbidden, permissible, or obligatory based on the views of Julian Savulescu and Michael

Sandel.

After setting the situation, I'll make the case that GE violates our moral principles

since it promotes despicable traits while simultaneously diminishing those we hold dear.

Next, I'll examine a counterargument raised by Savulescu, who claims that GE endangers

people's health, and explain my thoughts on the matter. Thus, using GE for non-medical

purposes is something we must avoid. The morality of employing GE for non-medical

purposes is a topic of debate, with opposing arguments by Michael Sandel and Julian

Savulescu. Sandel claims it is immoral to use GE to improve human characteristics, while

Savulescu insists it is required.

According to Sandel, using GE for anything other than medicinal needs is immoral

because it goes against the gift concept. He thinks it's arrogant to try to change someone's

genes because they're a part of who they are and were given to us by our parents and nature

(Event, No Pg.). Sandel is concerned that GE will lead to a new type of eugenics in which

those deemed genetically inferior are shunned from society, thus exacerbating the problem of

socioeconomic inequality. After reading Sandel's justifications for why using GE for non-

medical purposes is immoral, I agree with them. First, I agree with his present suggestion,

which is quite intriguing. Sandel thinks it would be arrogant to change our genetic makeup

because, like other aspects of our identity, they are gifts from our parents and nature. Instead

of striving to control and mold every element of our life, he believes people should appreciate

themselves and their children as they are.

I agree with Sandel partly because I share his concern that the misuse of GE for non-

medical objectives could give rise to a new type of eugenics in which those regarded as
 Last Name 3

genetically inferior are banished from society (Event, No Pg.). This might lead to a genetic

caste structure that reinforces existing inequalities. Sandel cautions that the long-term impacts

of GE are unclear and that there may be unforeseen repercussions that we cannot predict,

which is why his notion is worth supporting for a third reason. I believe that, rather than

diving headfirst into a new technology we do not completely understand, people should

exercise prudence and take a "precautionary approach" to GE. The potential hazards and

unforeseen repercussions of employing GE for non-medical uses motivate Sandel's stance.

According to him, we need to exercise prudence and consider this technology's wider social

and ethical ramifications before moving forward.

In contrast, I will explain why I disagree with Savulescu's justifications based on

procreative beneficence, the view that parents have a moral duty to have children who will

lead the best possible lives. Savulescu thinks that GE can assist parents in meeting this duty

by enabling them to select characteristics that will improve their children's chances in life

(Savulescu, p.28). As long as the procedures are safe and effective, according to Savulescu,

there is no moral difference between employing GE and traditional means like education and

training to increase qualities.

The potential for negative side effects is one of the main reasons I can't entirely agree

with Savulescu's claim that using GE to improve human qualities is morally acceptable and

even required. GE indeed has the potential to better people's lives. Still, there are also risks

linked with it that we don't completely understand. Unforeseen repercussions, such as the

long-term impacts of genetic manipulation, are one such example.

The potential for GE to worsen societal inequality is another reason I'm afraid I have

to disagree with Savulescu's views. If GE were used for non-medical purposes, it might

create a "genetic elite" who can access this technology and improve their qualities while
 Last Name 4

others are left behind. This has the potential to establish a genetically based class or caste

structure. Using GE for non-medical purposes may lead to people having inflated notions of

what it means to be "perfect" or "improved," leading them to feel inadequate or inferior if

they do not conform to these ideals. Opponents of Savulescu's argument state that employing

GE for non-medical purposes is fraught with hazards and ethical considerations and that we

should exercise caution and thoroughly analyze the potential implications of this technology

before accepting its usage.

Conclusion

Controversy has arisen in recent years about the use of genetic engineering (GE) for

non-medical goals, such as improving IQ or athletic performance. In this paper, I have argued

in favor of Michael Sandel's stance on the ethics of GE and countered Savulescu's arguments

with certain research-based validations. Taken as a whole, these arguments show how

intricate the social and ethical concerns are when applying GE outside of the medical field.

The possible advantages of GE for enhancing human well-being are emphasized by

Savulescu, while Sandel is more concerned with the ramifications of viewing personality

traits as marketable commodities. The morality of GE will ultimately be determined by how

society weighs these various factors. Genetic enhancement (GE) for non-medical purposes is

a contentious topic and should be banned.

Works Cited

Savulescu, Julian. “Bioethics: Why Philosophy Is Essential for Progress.” Journal of Medical

Ethics, vol. 41, no. 1, 2015, pp. 28–33. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43283218.

Accessed 20 Feb. 2023.

 Last Name 5

Event Summary: A Debate on the Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Brookings,

www.brookings.edu/opinions/event-summary-a-debate-on-the-ethics-of-genetic-

engineering/#:~:text=Sandel%20spoke%20out%20against%20medically. Accessed

20 Feb. 2023.