Assignment task:
Julian Savulescu gives us an interesting argument in favor of his view that parents will eventually (once the technology is proven and safe) have a duty (not just a right) to genetically modify their children. Given that this is a rather bold position to hold, the burden of argument is squarely on him. To convince us, he gives us this argument (roughly reconstructed from the text, pp. 138-39): IF the following two sets of parents are equally morally blameworthy: A. Parents who neglect to give their child a special diet needed to maintain the child's "stunning intellect" B. Parents who out of laziness fail to give their child a special diet to increase the child's intelligence THEN, we can conclude that parents who-due to either neglect or laziness-do not provide small, easy enhancement for their children are blameworthy for causing less good outcomes. He then uses this conclusion to argue by analogy that failing to genetically modify one's children would also be wrong: IF the above parents are morally wrong, then those failing to genetically modify their children to enhance the children's skills, abilities, etc., would also be wrong. What do you make of this argument? There are two general routes by which to raise objections to this sort of argument:
1. disagree with his initial examples/conclusions, or
2. argue that the extension from those first example to his claims about genetic modification fails. So, in thinking about his argument, start here: Would failing to enhance non-genetically in every way possible be a wrong? Is parenting primarily about enhancing? What would that even mean? What are parents obligated to do for their children? Could we fault the parents in his first cases without faulting people for not genetically enhancing their children? Are there important differences between a) ways we now expect parents to help their children and b) engaging in genetic enhancements to help them?