Genetic testing and engineering pose complex moral and cultural dilemmas for
scientists, philosophers and humanity in general. Some may win, some must lose
- how do we reconcile our differences?
Cures and
preventative therapies to combat human diseases are helping to improve our
health and extend our lifespan. There is, of course, a downside; for example,
although we now live longer, we have to endure a poorer quality of life for a
much higher percentage of its total span. Being human, we generally
consider that life, however difficult, is better than no life at all. But human
enhancement, in the sense of making us, in Michael Selgelid's words
"better than well," is a subject of intense debate as discussed in
his article "A Moderate Approach to Enhancement."
The following
"improvements" to our lives are no longer merely speculation.We can, if we want to:
1.
Genetically test IVF embryos before they are
implanted, so that only those with healthy and positive qualities are chosen.
2.
Following on from item 1, parents might
eventually select qualities with which to endow their offspring, for example
intelligence, height, beauty, strength, etc. These "designer"
children would, of course, enjoy better quality lives.
3.
Genetic therapy might remove a
"disease-causing genetic missing sequence."
4.
Following on from item 3, it might then be
possible to enhance a person's genome for pure human enhancement where there is
no threat to life.
Many people
are comfortable with the idea that enhancement procedures could, and should, be
used to combat disease providing they are safe. But - to interfere with nature
merely for enhancement, just for acquiring "desirable traits"
presents, for some, a moral dilemma.
So what is morally wrong with human
enhancement?
The main
objection put forward by Michael Selgelid is that of the social consequences.
The procedures would only be available to those able to afford them, leading to
an imbalance in social equality.
"It is hard," he says, "to
imagine that they would be made freely available to all via universal
healthcare systems, which, due to resource constraints, are often unable to
provide even necessary services to all who need them."
It follows
from this that wealthy people and their children would do better than poor
people and their children, increasing the division
between those who have and those who must go without.
We might now
look at the philosophy of objectivism as propounded by Russian-born American
novelist, Ayn Rand, who maintained that we should not sacrifice our own lives
to others, nor should we sacrifice others' lives to ourselves.
In principle,
this seems rational, embodies respect for the individual, promotes personal
responsibility and rational self-interest, and the constitutional protection of
an individual's rights. Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. in "Against
Environmentalism" explains her theory which claims that "things
qualify as good or evil, valuable or detrimental, only insofar as they serve or
frustrate the ultimate value, and the ultimate value is one's life." Rand
says, in The Virtue of Selfishness, page 27:
"Man must choose his
actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man - in
order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in
itself, which is his own life."
But, here
there is a difficulty; the need to reconcile asserting the ultimate value of
one's own life when it actually devalues the life of another person or persons.
How do we reconcile this difficulty?
Why is genetic enhancement different
from other kinds of enhancement?
Michael
Selgelid points out:
"We already tolerate a wide variety of
inequality-promoting non-genetic enhancements."
Selgelid is talking
about the comfortable lifestyles of the rich; for example, the sports, music
and arts lessons, the special schools and holidays. Is there, he asks, any
difference between genetic enhancement and the other kinds of
enhancement?
I am not sure whether this is a valid argument. The fact
that inequality already exists in society is surely not a good reason to condone
further inequalities, in other words, "Two wrongs don't make a
right!" What Michael Selgelid actually concludes is that the main
difficulty would be "scale." If the practices became widespread, then
"their impact on equality could turn out to be much greater than that
which results from currently available non-genetic means of enhancement."
Not only would
this be unjust, but democracy and social stability could be under threat. There
is, already, a great injustice in medical research resources, where 90 per cent
of research focusses on ten per cent of global diseases because it targets
drugs expected to provide the maximum profit. Quality of life overall could
plummet due to the drain on resources caused by genetic human enhancement. As
Rand says, inThe Virtue of Selfishness, page 16:
"The concept
"value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question:
"of value to whom and for what?"
Empirical and Philosophical Questions
The unresolved
questions must address the inequality that might result from unrestricted human
enhancement, and the impact that this unrestricted practice might have overall.
But, Selgelid asserts, these are really empirical questions, and not purely
philosophical questions. The philosophical questions
"...concern how the
value of personal liberty should be weighed against social equality and welfare
in cases where these values conflict."
This brings into focus the
important concept of liberty, although Michael Selgelid is quick to point out
that no quality should necessarily have precedence over others.
"Utilitarians,"
he says, "argue that aggregate benefit is the only thing that ultimately
matters to society, ie. the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people,
should always be promoted, even at the expense of liberty and equality."
Egalitarians on the other hand, favour equality above all, while libertarians,
of course, are intent on the value of liberty. Each stance has values of right
and values of wrong due to the weight placed on the quality they emphasise. As
far as Selgelid is concerned, this means they are "out-of-line with
commonsense, ethical thinking and what is generally considered to be good
policy-making."
Michael
Selgelid concludes that the answer must be to maintain balance and apply
trade-offs between the qualities of liberty, equality and utility in order to
determine:
"how great the costs of enhancement would need to be for us to
be justified in denying people the freedom to enhance themselves and their
offspring, and to what extent."
This, I
believe, is one of the most difficult moral dilemmas the human race has had to
address and it will be interesting, and maybe even frightening, to see how the
situation develops.
Sources:
·
Berliner, Michael S. "Against
Environmentalism," Ayn Rand Institute: Accessed 28 December 2013.
·
Selgelid, Michael, "A Moderate Approach
to Enhancement,"Philosophy Now, Issue
91, July/August 2012.
·
Harwood, Jeremy, "Ayn Rand," Philosophy - 100 Great Thinkers,
Quercus, 2010.