marijuana | Healthcare | Gun Control | Foreign Policy | Muslim World | Terrorism | Capitol Hill | Social Issues

The Case Against Perfection: Michael Sandel

More videos from this partner:

13
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
Advertisement
There are 10 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
Mitchell01 Avatar
Mitchell01
Posted: 10.14.09, 11:18 PM
I believe that the only rules we need is the rule of unconditional love! Living by example to magnify love for the one that needs it most is the universal rule of law. Sort of like in a family to where the parents show love unconditionally, and the children learn not by rule of law, but through rule of love. Love always wins, and is the only rule mankind will ever need to live in harmony in our limited and linear existence.
studio7manga Avatar
studio7manga
Posted: 09.11.09, 01:42 AM
I don't find this argument convincing in the least. Parents already control what goes into their child's diet, education, exercise, and other activities like music or dance lessons. This is simply gifting their children with additional advantages prior to their birth. And by the way, kids already are objects of their parent's ambition, just go to any little league game or spelling bee or whatever. To me this argument is little more than technophobic paranoia packaged in a revamped "if man was meant to fly, he'd be given wings" argument. Arguing from nature to my mind fails utterly, there is just as much "good" in nature as there is "bad". Humans are the arbiter of what is proper not nature. Additionally I find it compelling to be able to take the reigns of our own evolution for the first time in history.
daniel_t Avatar
daniel_t
Posted: 07.27.09, 04:38 PM
I think there are a couple of fundamental points Sandel missed. Over and over he talks about using genetic engineering to "improve" our children, but nothing of the sort is being done or proposed. I will illustrate what I mean with an example: Couple A decides they want a daughter and so they go to a clinic and arrange to ensure that they have a little baby girl. Couple B makes no such decision, they just want a kid, but their child also happens to be born a girl. How are the two children any different? Is either loved less by their parents? No. Is either more advantaged in society than the other? No. Just because couple A choose their child, doesn't mean they *improved* their child. You can replace the trait with *any other* trait you wish, intelligence, physical or musical aptitude, whatever, and the situation remains the same. Further, if his objection is valid, then surely he considers adoption morally wrong. After all, that is exactly what adopting parents do. They *choose* their children!
benjis007 Avatar
benjis007
Posted: 01.08.09, 08:45 AM
or better yet...leave the children out of it. Stick to the transhumanism that can be granted after you are a consenting adult -- ie: microchips(optional), memory enhancing nanotech (its real and available soon), or cell improvment tech to improve longevity. All these could be optional for an adult, not genetically implanted into children.
benjis007 Avatar
benjis007
Posted: 01.08.09, 08:17 AM
i like the idea of taking our perspective out of the equation when talking about modification of children. Keep it double-blind and objective as possible. Perhaps there is an ideal algorithm for producing the best random mix of traits of parents, etc... People though, perhaps aren't objective enough on their own to choose their children and his/her traits to a large degree.
thinkahol Avatar
thinkahol
Posted: 11.08.08, 10:41 PM
In addition the question of the rich/poor gap being inscribed in our genes, could only be temporary, as the technology eventually becomes cheaper, better, and more available.
thinkahol Avatar
thinkahol
Posted: 11.08.08, 10:39 PM
very quickly, Sandel makes a good argument for why we should individually prefer to eschew genetically modifying our children, but I think is unconvincing in implying that it should be outlawed. He very much overstates the influence modification could have, or underestimates the role chance would continue to play in shaping the identity of the child. Also he argues that society should be made more fitting for humans and not the other way around. Of course society should be more just, but that does not preclude us from trying to make humans more capable of enacting and preserving a just society. I would also ask Sandel what he thinks about specifically genetically enhancing morality in our children.
Advertisement

Advertisement