To better understand whether we are morally obligated to genetically enhance our future babies, we first need to understand the idea of morality. According to Kant, there exists absolute truths to morality which can be understood through rational thought. Kant uses categorical imperative formulars that rely on rational thought. Kant states that, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Mills on the other hand argues out that morality is achieve through taking into account the utility to human kind of any specific action. R.M Hare argues out that the idea of morality is a human construct and is governed by logical consistency under universal prescriptivism which states that if an individual would prescribe to a particular action if they find themselves in the situation of any of the affected person, it is morally acceptable to prescribe to the particular action. Some scholars have argued that genetically engineering our future babies is morally wrong due to lack of consent, which automatically violated their autonomy. Also known as germ-line engineering, genetic engineering of the human body also leads to arguments such as treating the recipients as a means to the ends of the people who are expressing their self-interests and therefore, violating human dignity. Ultimately, genetically enhancing future babies might result in a “post-human future” where human dignity, autonomy, and beneficence are sacrificed.
There has been increasing debate on the ethics of human genetic enhancement over the past few decades. Although this debate is not so new to science, there is a wide gap when it comes to permissibility as presented by various prominent authors, bioethicists, philosophers, and even lawyers. Proponents of human genetic enhancement stick to the argument that human interest in enhancement is as a result of the natural willingness to seek improvement in our capability and welfare in life. Human nature is prone to error, and while most opponents share the opinion that altering the human genome for a better race is immoral, the advantages associated with enhancement could far outweigh the risks depending on the level of enhancement. Arguably, the interest for the moral, physical, and cognitive well-being of all people and its inheritance by future generations has always been present. We cannot possibly wish to transmit dysfunctional or unwanted traits to our offspring, and while some nations took this initiative to the extreme through movements such as the eugenics movement in the United States, the goal was to prevent inbred disabilities (Lombardo, 2011). Towards the end of the 19th century, the Western society had adopted extreme measures to control genetic inheritance, such as marriage restrictions, regulation of immigration, and selective sterilizations. The history on genetic engineering has thus morphed through different phases, from therapeutic interests to non-therapeutic genetic enhancement.
According to the principle of procreative beneficence (PPB) single reproducers, also referred to as parents should have a choice of selecting a child out of the possible children, they are likely to have who will lead the best life. The outcome of PPB is that in a scenario where preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in addition to embryo selection are accessible, potential parents are morally obligated to utilized them and to pick an embryo that has the highest likelihood of having the best life. One place that PPB can be applied is through avoiding selection of embryos with traits of disease. Its applications are however not confined to such scenarios. However, it involves that when presented with embryos with disease traits and without disease traits, potential parents should pick an embryo that has the best chance of having the best life not factoring in moral consideration.
The idea of the best life should further be examined when referring to PPB. It is important to understand that the best life is relative as there is no one definition of best or better life. Without clear understanding of a better or best life, it becomes difficult to have a clear criterion on how potential parents can have the moral obligation of choosing the best life for their children. Is it the best life according to them, the child, the society or according to whom specifically? Arguments brought about by Herissone‐Kelly, (2006) spark the mind to think deeper about this issue where he puts forth a hypothetical scenario involving two embryos. When Embryo A for instance lets call it Kayla and embryo B lets call it Fred (persons who will develop from the embryo). When choosing the best life, one assumes that they are choosing the best life for one person and not picking a different person all together while letting the other not live their life.
The nature of our moral reasons to select the most advantaged child is inherent when potential parents are presented with the options. However, the most advantaged child seems to be a fairly relative subject. In the US for instance, parents are at liberty to choose embryos that have conditions are in normal circumstances have disabilities. For instance, in the case of Sharon and Candy McCullough who were dead opted to select a male sperm donor who was deaf, to increase their chances of getting a deaf child. Disability proponents were if the opinion that such a choice is morally acceptable. However, most people were of the opinion that this was a morally wrong choice and reproductive technology should be adopted in eliminating disability as opposed to increasing the chances of bringing disabled children to life. According to the Selection Against Disability view, potential parents ought to choose where possible children who are projected to be non-disabled. The disability constraint on reproduction state that reproducers should not choose a child who is anticipated to be disabled or not be normal. However, when we go back to our couple who were deaf and analyze their moral reason, we see reason in their judgement. One of the areas that bugged their thought process is the nature of their relationship with their child in a scenario where they would be in a position to hear sounds. They thought they would not be able to raise the child the best way they know how. However, others argued that just like people learn language, their child could learn sign language and be able to effectively communicate with them and thus choosing for their child to be deaf is limiting their child’s opportunities (Savulescu & Kahane, 2009).
Undoubtedly, our moral obligation to genetic enhancement of humans can only be established when we answer the pertinent question: what is the limit? Varying goals, especially those concerned with therapy or enhancement, are often the most challenging to navigate. Whether we are allowed to create perfect human babies attracted the question of identity, long term social and psychological consequences and what it means to be human in the first place. In any human initiative, the concept of the subject’s autonomy is an important factor and thus an important consideration if we are to incorporate germ-line engineering. In this case, there are two types of wills that are evident when enhancement is pursued: those responsible for the decision and the enhanced individual. These two may not always coincide, and thus the dilemma in balancing personal interests with altruism. According to Kantian perception of freedom, individuals must govern their actions based on reason rather than their animalistic instincts (Kant, 1908). Kant’s idea of freedom presents a complicated yet thought-provoking predicament where the concept of freedom is not quite real, but an enslavement of the individual self to their animalistic nature. Hence, we only have a notion of reason that is intrinsically attached to our desires. While we would think that we make decisions based on objectivity rather than subjectivity, the preposition to consider empirical facts or evidence should be superior. By choosing to act this way, we would be operating reasonably, and professionally.
While considering the nature of genetic enhancement of future generations, Kantian take on pure reason rather than libertarian freedom is important in setting a boundary where individual rationality or lack of thereof could dictate one’s perception of what is moral. To achieve freedom, we must sacrifice our own desire and hence run our lives based on pure reason as opposed to our intrinsic (libertarian) reason. With such a provision, we would be able to understand the boundaries of pursuing a controversial concept like genetic enhancement of the germline that is far beyond therapeutic interests. Following the providence of beneficence, we need to establish the true meaning of good or best life. Furthermore, such a decision to suspend our desires would mean that we can reach a universal decision on what our limits are, and thus create a world where science is used for a long term and sustainable course of alleviating the burden of disease, and suffering in the case of preventable illnesses or disabilities. Hence, considering our limits based on how far the consequences go would require a reestablishment of a universal agreement on the value of morality in medical, social, economic, and even political spheres.
