What is immoral about Eugenics?

In light of controversial issues such as racism, abortion, cloning, the human genome project, and especially genetic engineering, it could be argued that a modern-day form of technological eugenics is here, and the question of whether mankind should control its genetic destiny just because it can must be considered. After all, we all know of the horrors that genocide and government-enforced breeding programs have wrought in the past, and many of us have seen enough science fiction to suspect that any attempt to change the very nature of what it is to be "human" can have disastrous consequences. This article argues that there is nothing inherently immoral about eugenics in and of itself, but rather that immoral issues often arise surrounding eugenics.

Most obviously, there is the problem of coercion. The government's historical eugenics programs required those with "undesirable" genetic traits to be sterilized against their will. However, the moral issue present here is that the government was curtailing people's rights to procreate. If people decided, of their own fully informed free will, to only reproduce if their genes are "desirable," than coercion would not be an issue. Similarly, there is the problem of the subjectivity of perfection. What makes a "perfect" child is subjective, and thus it is arguable whether it is anyone's right to genetically engineer a child based on his or her own arbitrary preferences. However, some things aren't subjective. For instance, eugenics could be used to only foster healthier, stronger children, but forgo superficial qualities. Furthermore, even control of superficial features may be permissable. We allow parents to control many health-neutral aspects of their children's lives, imposing their own beliefs, values, and interests, so perhaps imposing their own standards of beauty should be acceptable as well. Finally there is the problem of equality. If the wealthy, who can afford genetically engineered children, all create "perfect" offspring, while the poor have more traditionally flawed children, the children of the wealthy will have a distinct advantage in life, widening the gap between rich and poor. However, this would not be an issue if genetic engineering was free to all. Also, as with the subjectivity of perfection, parents can currently give their children advantages through choices in educational and philosophical upbringing and career training, so genetic advantages might not be so different.

I do not agree with this article. While I would hardly decry (fully informed, consensual) eugenics or genetic engineering as evil, they are ill-advised. Earth's ecosystem thrives on biodiversity, the most genetically diverse areas are the most stable, and allow for the strongest, healthiest evolution. When mankind attempts to take hold of the reigns of evolution itself, weeding out weakness, it usually backfires. Consider the matter of antibacterial hand soap. On the surface, it is obviously a good idea, it kills harmful bacteria for the improvement of our health. However, long-term it sped up the process of evolution in bacteria by weeding out the weakest species, and modern bacteria is now much more resistant to antibacterial hand soap. Similar is the case of Penicillin, once a virtual panacea, now comparatively worthless. If mankind were allowed unlimited control over its children's genetic health, similar, though probably much greater, problems would arise.

As for superficial qualities, I would be extremely hesitant to leave these in the hands of human beings. When people rely on plastic surgery and cosmetics to feel good about their bodies, we consider it unhealthy (unless perhaps used very sparingly). How much more unhealthy would it be to subject ones child to plastic surgery or something similar (except, again, in extreme cases where such a thing may be necessary to mask a debilitating disfigurement)? The healthiest relationship a parent could have with his or her child is to love them completely no matter who or what they are, being proud of whatever positive traits they happen to posses, and in spite of whatever negative traits they happen to posses.

While admitting that I got a little subjective at the end there, I would still definitely say that any use of genetic engineering or eugenics on ones child should be extremely sparing at most. I would even go as far as to say the government should limit genetic engineering and eugenics at least somewhat, if only for health purposes.