Kamm: "Is There a Problem With Enhancement?"

I. Criticism of How Sandel Distinguishes between Treatment and Enhancement

Sandel says: ". . . medical intervention to cure or prevent illness . . . does not desecrate nature but honors it. Healing sickness or injury does not override a child's natural capacities but permits them to flourish."

Criticism (8-9): He assumes here that nature should be honored. But why should we honor natural phenomena such as the HIV virus, cancer, tornadoes, and so forth? The natural and the good are distinct concepts.

Maybe Sandel's considered position is that "we may permissibly override and not honor nature when we get rid of the things in nature that interfere with the other parts of nature that are its gifts (i.e., good things)" (9).

Criticism (9): Contrary to what Sandel seems to suggest, his view would not then rule out dramatically extending the human life span through genetic engineering.

II. Criticism of Sandel's Condemnation of Enhancement Based on Its Failure to Balance Accepting and Transforming Love

Criticism (9): Sandel's notion of balancing is vague.

Criticism (10): Changes made before a child exists (ex ante enhancements) would not violate a requirement to balance accepting with transforming love. So it would be illegitimate to rule out such enhancements on the grounds that they fail to balance properly these two kinds of love.

III. Kamm's Concern about Enhancement: Our Lack of Imagination (13-14)

Back to Syllabus

Kamm: "Is There a Problem With Enhancement?"

I. Criticism of How Sandel Distinguishes between Treatment and Enhancement

Sandel says: ". . . medical intervention to cure or prevent illness . . . does not desecrate nature but honors it. Healing sickness or injury does not override a child's natural capacities but permits them to flourish."

Criticism (8-9): He assumes here that nature should be honored. But why should we honor natural phenomena such as the HIV virus, cancer, tornadoes, and so forth? The natural and the good are distinct concepts.

Maybe Sandel's considered position is that "we may permissibly override and not honor nature when we get rid of the things in nature that interfere with the other parts of nature that are its gifts (i.e., good things)" (9).

Criticism (9): Contrary to what Sandel seems to suggest, his view would not then rule out dramatically extending the human life span through genetic engineering.

II. Criticism of Sandel's Condemnation of Enhancement Based on Its Failure to Balance Accepting and Transforming Love

Criticism (9): Sandel's notion of balancing is vague.

Criticism (10): Changes made before a child exists (ex ante enhancements) would not violate a requirement to balance accepting with transforming love. So it would be illegitimate to rule out such enhancements on the grounds that they fail to balance properly these two kinds of love.

III. Kamm's Concern about Enhancement: Our Lack of Imagination (13-14)