Michael Sandel (2002) begins by stating that he believes there are reasons that “go beyond safety, fairness, and embryos” (pg.1) when objecting enhancement and different forms of genetic engineering. There would still be an issue, even if there was a way to create a performance enhancing drug that safe and available to everyone without any disadvantages. The ones using the performance enhancing drugs can no longer take credit for their actions. An example would be an athlete using these drugs to play better, “the more the athlete relies on drugs…the less his performance represents his achievement” (Sandel, 2002, pg.2).What Sandel is saying is can be credible because even in the real world athletes who are caught using performance enhancers face a lot of repercussions. Their fan bases begin to dwindle and they lose all their prestige. An example would be cycling in the Olympics. So many athletes were caught “doping” or using performance enhancers that the sport itself is beginning to lose its popularity. This is the point that Sandel (2002) is trying to make, even if that the tools for enhancement are made equally available to everyone “something morally troubling persists” (pg. 1). It is reasonable to argue that naturally developing one’s talents is better than artificially enhancing them. By doing so, one can take credit for their actions. Based on the ideas presented in Sandel’s essay, his ethical standing can be correlated to the virtue approach. …show more content…
In an essay titled “Thinking Ethically About Human Biotechnology” five different ethical approaches are discussed. The writing Doctor Margaret R. McLean (2000) states in her explanation of the virtue approach that “virtues are dispositions that facilitate acting in ways that develop human potential and human flourishing” (pg.4). The definition of virtue is “behavior showing high moral standards” (Merriam-Webster, 2016) which is exactly Michael Sandel’s takes into consideration the most when developing his opinions and ideas on enhancement. Nearly every topic of enhancement Sandel addresses is tied into what he feels is morally right. The virtue approach allows one to take the utilitarian, rights, justice and common good approaches into consideration. However, the Virtue approach also places an emphasis on morals and how they drive one to act. Just because a person acts morally doesn’t mean that they will always make the right decision. Some people have emotionally driven morals that can cause them to act on what makes them feel better rather than doing what is right. Sandel (2002) brings up the idea that people must acknowledge that “our talents and powers are not wholly out own doing, nor fully ours, despite the efforts we expend to develop and to exercise them” (pg.2). This means that one must realize that there are characteristics given to each individual that are not meant to be altered. Sandel believes that there is a danger in trying to enhance different qualities of people and other living things. He claims that there is a “deeper danger” in trying to “remake nature” (Sandel, 2002, pg. 2). An aspect of genetic engineering that these beliefs are often brought up in regards to, is the genetic modification of embryos. Parents having the ability to design their children how they feel is best, will change the parental love from accepting to transforming. Sandel fails to acknowledge that there are times when genetic engineering can be beneficial. Genetic engineering can be used to eradicate disease and other potential illness in children. It would not be fair for Sandel