In this blog post, I will proofread and edit an article discussing the ethical issues that arise when parents genetically design their children—specifically, how this infringes on the children’s right to choose and their personal autonomy—and organize it into a natural, easy-to-read format.
We are truly living in the age of overzealous parents. Things that were once unimaginable are actually happening because of them, and it’s not uncommon to come across related news articles or hear personal accounts. The range of incidents is diverse, from stories told by graduate students about parents who called to complain about their college-student sons’ assignment grades, to news articles about a mother who, upon seeing her dejected son return home from work, expressed her dissatisfaction by contacting his team leader directly. While such cases may occur more frequently in South Korea due to the country’s relatively high level of educational fervor compared to other cultures, overzealous parents exist in every country. In fact, even setting aside overzealous parents, with the exception of a few abnormal cases, most parents wish for their children’s well-being every single day without fail. While this may seem like natural parental love, in today’s world where gene-enhancement technology is becoming a reality, this love can give rise to new ethical issues.
That issue is precisely the question: “Should parents be allowed to design their children?” Here, “designing a child” refers to parents enhancing the genes of a child who has not yet been born. In his book ‘On the Ethics of Life’, Harvard University Professor Michael J. Sandel presents various viewpoints on the issue of parents determining their children’s lives, while making it clear that his own position is opposed to it. Like Professor Sandel, I, too, oppose the design of children by parents. Genetic enhancement carried out before birth inevitably introduces parental intentions into the countless choices the enhanced individual (hereinafter referred to as the “enhanced person”) will make throughout their life, and this infringes upon the realm of human freedom.
Most people would agree that the infringement of human freedom is an ethical issue. In his book ‘On Liberty’, John Stuart Mill proposed the principle that we must respect the freedom of others, and his ideas continue to enjoy widespread support today.
“In human society, there is only one case in which anyone—whether an individual or a group—may infringe upon another’s freedom of action: when it is necessary for self-protection. If the purpose is to prevent harm to others, the use of power against the will of the individual concerned can be considered justified. Except for this sole case, no exercise of political power that infringes upon the freedom of citizens in a civilized society can be justified.”
Although John Stuart Mill discussed human freedom broadly, since freedom itself is the subject of various debates, this essay will use the narrower concept of the “sphere of freedom.” Here, the “sphere of freedom” refers to the realm where choice exists. For example, completing required courses for graduation is not optional and therefore does not fall within the sphere of freedom; however, deciding in which semester to take those courses is a matter of individual choice and thus falls within the sphere of freedom. From this perspective, since humans do not inherently have the authority to choose their own genetic traits, the selection of genetic traits prior to birth is not part of the “realm of freedom.” Therefore, the mere fact that the will of the individual whose traits are enhanced was not reflected in the decision regarding which genetic traits to enhance before birth is not considered a violation of the “realm of freedom.” The focus of this paper is on the issue of decision-making authority being compromised after birth.
The concept that genetic enhancement before birth corrupts subsequent decision-making can be illustrated with a simple example. Suppose parents have enhanced genes related to their child’s intelligence. As the child undergoes compulsory education, they naturally encounter academic work; due to the influence of the enhanced genes, their learning speed increases, making studying feel easier. In this case, the child might develop an interest in studying and work hard, or, conversely, might lose interest because it feels too easy. Regardless of which path the child chooses, the crucial point is that the intelligence-related genes enhanced by the parents—whether positively or negatively—influenced that decision. Ultimately, the genes that the parents enhanced with a specific intent have influenced the child’s decision-making, which is no different from the parents intervening in the decision-making process. Moreover, since those genes remain in the child’s body for life and will continue to influence future decisions, the parents’ intent effectively intervenes in the child’s choices for the rest of their life. This is precisely what is meant by the “contamination of decision-making autonomy.”
Since the infringement of personal autonomy constitutes an ethical issue, I oppose parents “designing” their children for this reason. From the same perspective, high-pressure parenting styles can also be viewed as an attempt to infringe upon personal autonomy, as they continuously steer children toward choices aligned with the parents’ wishes. Therefore, I also oppose coercive parenting styles.
Of course, those in favor of parents “designing” their children (hereinafter referred to as the “pro-side”) might argue that, even without coercive parenting, all children are raised by parents with specific dispositions; thus, the parents’ way of life and beliefs are naturally passed on to their children, influencing the choices those children make throughout their lives. To be more specific, even if parents do not engage in genetic enhancement or coercive education, if they consistently play soft classical music in the home from the child’s early years, that child is highly likely to prefer classical music even after growing up. Furthermore, as is often noted in books on child-rearing, rather than parents repeatedly telling their children to “study,” showing them by example—by reading books and newspapers themselves—may be more effective in helping children naturally develop habits of reading and learning. For this reason, proponents argue that the very fact of growing up under specific parents is no different from parental intervention in the countless choices children make throughout their lives.
This is a counterargument closely related to my own position, and one with which I can agree to a certain extent. However, if we consider a slightly different scenario, it becomes clear that intentionally enhancing one’s genetic makeup is distinctly different from growing up while naturally being influenced by parents with specific traits. Unfortunately, not everyone lives with their biological parents. Due to various circumstances, some children grow up in child welfare facilities, while others are adopted by foster parents. People who do not grow up with their biological parents, as in these cases, develop in entirely different environments. Therefore, a person who was not genetically designed by their parents is likely to grow into a very different person than they would have been had they been raised by their biological parents. However, even if a person whose genes were designed by their biological parents is raised in a new environment, they cannot completely escape their biological parents’ influence. This is easy to understand if we revisit the example given earlier. A person with enhanced genes related to intelligence will continue to be influenced by those enhanced genes when making choices related to learning, even if they are not raised by their biological parents. In this way, genetic enhancement results in an infringement on one’s freedom of choice, even when growing up in an environment unaffected by parental influence. Therefore, pre-natal genetic enhancement can be viewed not merely as a means for parents to influence their children, but as an act of designing the course of a person’s life. This constitutes an attempt by one human being to exert absolute influence over another, and as such, it raises clear ethical issues. For this reason, we must strictly distinguish between intentionally influencing a child through genetic enhancement and a child growing up naturally under the influence of parents with specific traits.
The ethical issue regarding the infringement of the realm of freedom—which I have consistently argued—can be viewed as a conclusion drawn from evaluating parental “child design” from a consequentialist perspective. As mentioned earlier, since humans inherently lack the authority to choose their own genetic traits, the act of genetic enhancement itself does not raise ethical issues. However, ethical issues arise because the infringement of the realm of freedom occurs as the functions of the enhanced genes are actually expressed. Opponents may raise the following question in response: if individuals designed by their parents and those who are not ultimately lead the same lives, does parental intervention through genetic enhancement actually make a meaningful difference? To understand this, we can consider cosmetic surgery as an example. While cosmetic surgery is not a genetic enhancement technology, it can be considered one of the most representative examples of human enhancement. Although it is classified as a medical procedure, in reality, even people without health issues choose cosmetic surgery to improve their appearance. This can ultimately be viewed as an act of enhancing one’s appearance and, in terms of enhancement, shares similarities with genetic enhancement. Therefore, opponents may question whether, from a consequentialist perspective, there is a substantive difference between someone who has achieved outstanding looks through cosmetic surgery and someone who was naturally born with them.
As mentioned earlier, focusing on the infringement of the “sphere of freedom” caused by genetic enhancement can be viewed as a consequentialist value judgment. Let us, then, revisit the example used earlier to explain this infringement of the sphere of freedom. Undergoing genetic enhancement does not mean that the right to choose disappears entirely. Even if genes related to intelligence are enhanced, a person may still develop an interest in studying based on other personal inclinations—or, conversely, lose interest. The infringement of the “sphere of freedom” discussed in this article does not refer to the complete deprivation of the right to choose, but rather questions the nature of the influences that act upon that choice during the process of exercising it. In other words, this perspective focuses on the effects that arise during the process of making a choice, rather than being merely a matter of consequentialism. For example, even if both options (A) and (B) are chosen, the fact that a person designed by their parents chose (A) represents a choice influenced by parental intent, whereas a person not designed by their parents choosing (A) represents a choice free from such parental influence. Therefore, even if the same choice is made regardless of whether genetic enhancement occurred, the influence of genetic enhancement does not disappear. Even if the outcome of the choice is the same, the process by which the choice was made and its effects are clearly different.
So far, we have examined my thoughts on parental child design, the counterarguments to them, and my rebuttals to those counterarguments. Genetic enhancement can certainly provide many benefits when viewed from a consequentialist perspective on a child’s life. Depending on which genes the parents have enhanced, the child may demonstrate exceptional ability in fields where the function of those genes is required; if the surrounding environment also supports a career path in that field, the child may gain recognition for their abilities and lead a relatively stable life.
However, from an ethical perspective, genetic enhancement performed by parents before birth results in the parents’ intentions continually interfering whenever the child faces a crossroads in life. This constitutes an infringement on the realm of human freedom of choice and clearly raises ethical concerns.
Of course, it is possible that gene-editing technologies will advance even further in the future, and various gene-related therapeutic technologies will be widely utilized in medical practice. However, gene technology used for therapeutic purposes cannot be viewed ethically in the same light as gene enhancement intended to deliberately improve human capabilities. This is because the purposes of treating or preventing disease and those of enhancing specific abilities require discussion on different levels.
If an era arrives in which gene-enhancement technology becomes socially widespread, we might consider the possibility that, once a child has matured enough to independently reflect on their career path and life, they could directly judge and choose whether they need gene enhancement. This means they could have the opportunity to decide for themselves what genetic enhancements are truly necessary as they design their own lives.
This process might feel a bit slow and frustrating. However, isn’t the true role of a parent to wait until their child is able to design and make choices about their own life—and to respect those choices?
