Julian Savulescu argues that genetic enhancement is not only morally permissible, but it is morally obligatory to genetically enhance one’s own child. Savulescu presents three points to defend his claim, but his vague language causes his argument to be unacceptable. Savulescu’s three arguments are as follows. His first argument is about parental duty to fulfill their child’s needs. He gives the example of the Neglectful Parents and the Lazy Parents (p. 445). The Neglectful Parents could provide a supplement in their child’s diet to upkeep the child’s high intelligence and failure to do so would result in a child of normal intellect. This would be seen as wrong. Likewise with the Lazy Parents, they could enhance their child’s intelligence to become just as …show more content…
One problem lies in his argument involving environmental stimulation. Though many parents do try to stimulate their child’s environment to try to maximize their intelligence early on, it is not required of parents to do this. If Savulescu holds that genetic enhancement is morally obligatory, then he cannot draw from this example because it is not mandatory for parents to stimulate their child’s environment. It is also not disapproved of either. For example, it has been found in many studies that playing an instrument could increase intelligence but it is not frowned upon that many parents do not force their children to play a musical instrument. In addition to this, it cannot be entirely sure that this environmental stimulation will have any effect. It is still largely up to chance and depends on the child. Again, this means that this argument cannot be used for what Savulescu is proposing. Therefore, his argument breaks down because there is no longer a similarity between environmental intervention and biological intervention to improve a