In this blog post, I will summarize the key issues in the debate over genetic engineering and discuss the need for modern evaluation criteria that contrast with traditional ethical perspectives.

The Modern Context — From Survival to Quality of Life

Thanks to abundant food and advances in medicine, modern humanity enjoys a far more prosperous life than in the past. As a result of these changes, the fundamental questions of life have shifted from “How do we survive?” to “How do we live well?” People are now interested in more than simply avoiding hunger; they seek ways to live long, healthy lives free from illness and, furthermore, ways to enhance their mental and intellectual abilities. Just as taking nutritional supplements and exercising have become part of daily life, preparing for social success through learning and self-improvement has also become commonplace.
This interest naturally extends to their children. Most parents hope their children will not fall behind their peers physically or mentally, and they strive to raise them to be “near-perfect” individuals through rigorous education and care from an early age. However, not all humans start from the same point. While some children are born with outstanding physical and intellectual aptitudes, others face difficulties due to congenital disabilities. Because of this imbalance, parents cannot help but worry about their children’s fate from the moment they are born.
It is precisely at this point that modern biotechnology offers a powerful solution. Genetic engineering allows us to determine “birth conditions” to some extent—by modulating specific traits or reducing the likelihood of disease. Consequently, genetic engineering is no longer the stuff of science fiction but is being discussed as a realistic option.

The Essence of Sandel’s Criticism

Critics who have operated from the perspectives of community ethics or theology have raised strong concerns about genetic engineering. One such perspective views genetic engineering as an expression of human hubris, arguing that attempts to artificially alter innate conditions are morally problematic. They contend that artificially manipulating the framework of the world gives rise to ethical implications that humans cannot bear.
Another key criticism is that genetic engineering evokes memories of eugenics. There is concern that if the selection of specific abilities or traits becomes widespread, it risks reproducing human rights violations and discrimination, and could ultimately lead to a system that excludes the socially vulnerable. It has also been pointed out that the pressure on parents to “enhance” their children could lead to side effects such as ADHD or mental illness, exacerbate problems like substance abuse, and increase social costs.
Finally, there is concern that genetic modification will intensify competition, leading to a harsher social hierarchy. The warning is that if differences in ability are amplified and fixed through technology, competition will become fiercer, and as a result, society could shift toward an even more ruthless selection mechanism.

Challenges to Sandel’s Arguments

Sandel’s criticism is intuitively persuasive, but it contains several significant contradictions. First, Sandel distinguishes between therapy and enhancement, viewing therapy as positive but criticizing enhancement as instrumentalization. However, therapy is also, in essence, an act of changing the world’s “framework.” Curing a disease involves intervening in and altering the natural state; if this is evaluated solely based on the criterion of “accepting things as they are,” it is no different from arguing that we should neglect a sick child.
Furthermore, while Sandel takes issue with the instrumentalization of health, it is difficult to deny that health itself has long functioned as a means to achieve various ends. People maintain their health to live more comfortably and longer, and this is accepted as a socially legitimate goal.
Second, the association with eugenics may be an overly simplified criticism. From an evolutionary perspective, living organisms have evolved traits over generations to adapt to their environment. It is the natural order of things that traits disadvantageous for adaptation are eliminated, while advantageous ones persist. Humans are not merely natural animals but social animals; individuals with superior social adaptability tend to enjoy better conditions. Genetic modification can serve as a tool to artificially accelerate this adaptive process and does not necessarily imply only negative outcomes.
Third, the issues of physical injury or mental strain resulting from excessive training by parents can be considered separately from the logic of genetic engineering. If problems arising from physical and mental immaturity can be prevented, the resulting social costs and harm can also be reduced. In other words, if the number of people born with severe disabilities were to decrease significantly, welfare costs, the burden of care, and the risk of social exclusion and becoming targets of crime would likely decrease as well.
Fourth, the premise that genetic engineering is merely a means of intensifying competition also requires reexamination. The outcomes depend on the spread of the technology and the regulatory framework. If differences in ability were to diminish, the need for traditional hierarchies might weaken, and this could instead serve as a starting point for changes that foster equality and social harmony.

Ethical and Social Considerations and Conclusion

For a long time, issues concerning life have been interpreted through religious and theological lenses. It is understandable that some critics condemn genetic engineering on the basis of theocentric ethics. However, modern society has limitations when it comes to addressing complex scientific and technological issues using theological standards alone. As Nietzsche pointed out, in a context where traditional theocentric values have declined, we need to establish a new ethical framework that reflects rationality and practical implications.
When evaluating genetic engineering, the following practical and modern criteria are required. First, does it infringe upon individual dignity and human rights? Second, does it reinforce mechanisms that exacerbate social inequality? Third, does it minimize anticipated side effects and risks, and objectively assess the resulting social costs? Fourth, can it promote the public good through technological accessibility and regulatory frameworks?
In conclusion, genetic engineering is a technology that presents both risks and opportunities. Rather than an unconditional ban or indiscriminate approval, we need a discussion that fairly weighs the benefits and risks under rational and secular criteria. While respecting traditional ethical intuitions, prudent and transparent policies and regulations must be established through an evaluation framework that takes into account the practical consequences in modern society.