In this blog post, we explore the impact of advancements in gene design on autonomy and ethics, examining the ethical controversies surrounding it and whether it infringes upon autonomy.
Survival and reproduction are instincts shared by all living beings, and living a long and healthy life is humanity’s oldest aspiration. This instinct goes beyond simply sustaining an individual’s life; it focuses on ensuring the survival of the species by passing on genes to the next generation. Not only humans but all living beings naturally strive to pass on as many of their genes as possible to the next generation, and various strategies and adaptations have developed in this process. For example, some animals have developed camouflage to survive in specific environments or cultivated the ability to adapt to extreme conditions through physiological changes. These biological phenomena are all products of nature designed to maximize success in survival and reproduction.
So, is there an ethical issue with passing on superior traits to offspring in order to increase the probability of survival? This question is emerging as an important debate at the intersection of biological instinct and modern science. In the competition for survival, individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive, produce offspring, and pass those traits on to future generations. This leads to changes within a species depending on the environment and, ultimately, drives the evolution of the species as a whole. Darwin’s theory of natural selection explains the survival and proliferation of species through precisely this process.
Gene design is no different. Advances in genetic engineering technology open up the possibility of artificially manipulating the processes carried out by natural selection. This becomes a powerful tool in that it allows us to select genes suited to the environment and create offspring with optimal conditions. However, the use of such tools inevitably raises ethical controversies. The question of whether it is justifiable for humans to control and manipulate the course of nature becomes the central issue in exploring the nature of genetic design and the ethical dilemmas surrounding it.
Sandel explains the issue of genetic engineering design through differing perspectives on “enhancement” and continues his argument by discussing autonomy. Consider orthodontics or vision correction surgery. Sandel argues that while the boundary between enhancement and healing is somewhat blurred, the distinction is important. However, it is uncomfortable to accept that we must establish certain criteria and subject actions that cross those lines to ethical evaluation. Regardless of whether the method involves genetic engineering or not, both healing and enhancement aim to increase physical well-being. In this sense, healing and enhancement are essentially the same, and distinguishing between them is misguided. Similarly, enhancement through genetic design is mentally analogous to enhancement through education and training; there is no difference. It is merely the emergence of a new method that was previously unavailable. Sandel also acknowledges that, morally speaking, the difference is minimal.
What can be said about autonomy? Let us assume there is a child whose specific ability has been enhanced through genetic design. This child is likely to choose a particular career or path based on this enhanced ability. One might think that the child’s autonomy has been infringed upon. However, if the enhanced ability is versatile, like intelligence, the likelihood of a predetermined life plan is significantly lower. In other words, the child’s autonomy is not compromised. On the contrary, one could argue that a child whose physical defects were detected and treated through genetic design has more opportunities open to them in the future. In fact, regardless of the question of what happens to the autonomy of a child born through design, genetic design does not take away autonomy. This is because no one chooses their own genetic traits before being born.
The concepts of contingency and freedom discussed by Habermas differ slightly from the autonomy mentioned earlier. He argues that true freedom is conferred when there is a contingency at the outset that we cannot control. Control eliminates contingency, and the absence of contingency implies the absence of autonomy. Since control and autonomy are incompatible, even partial control—not just perfect control—can pose a problem for autonomy.
In other words, regardless of whether the abilities a child acquires through genetic design are versatile or not, the child’s autonomy cannot be considered complete.
However, freedom is a matter of choice. As mentioned earlier, no one is born having chosen their own genetic traits. In other words, whether genetic manipulation is performed or not, no one possesses the right to choose before birth. Whether a child is born through parental design or not, they are equally unable to choose their circumstances; in that sense, the right to make choices after birth is guaranteed in both cases. Furthermore, control prior to birth can be viewed as resulting from either natural selection or human selection. Regardless of which selection applies, innate control exists. The limitation of autonomy resulting from such control is inevitable; therefore, the right to choose and the resulting autonomy must be regarded as independent of innate control.
However, just as in the discussion regarding reinforcement, Habermas’s thinking ultimately returns to the issue of one’s attitude toward life. Here too, Sandel argues that parental actions to eliminate chance—regardless of the child’s autonomy—contradict the norm of unconditional love and fail to accept life as a gift. In terms of one’s attitude toward life, viewing life as a gift fosters a sense of gratitude and enables humility. The opposite attitude is one of conquest and domination. However, the notion of life as a gift does not mean that one must completely reject the active values represented by conquest and domination and adopt only a passive stance. In other words, the issue of one’s attitude toward life also appears to be a matter of balance. It is clear that the act of genetic design lies somewhere between active and passive values. And if there is no clear dividing line between them, the attitude of viewing life as a gift and genetic design can certainly coexist. If the motivation for designing a child does not stem from a desire for conquest that causes dissatisfaction, and if autonomy is taken into account during the design process, life remains a gift, and parental love also stays within the bounds of social norms.
With the advancement of science and technology, it is common for phenomena that were once in the realm of fate to now fall within the realm of choice. We invented the light bulb, yet we remain grateful for the existence of the sun and light; the invention itself did not make us happy or unhappy. Similarly, I believe that discussions regarding the ethical issues of genetic engineering are part of a paradigm shift. This change is both a challenge for humanity to move in a better direction and a key to resolving the ethical dilemmas we face.
