| The development of genetic editing technology has triggered the study of genetic editing in law and ethics.Genetic editing technology applied to human has two effects:genetic therapy and genetic improvement.The legitimacy of genetic therapy has been widely recognized by scholars,but the argument on the legitimacy of the right of genetic improvement is still in legal controversy,and urgent response is necessary.Genetic editing technology refers to the technology of site-specific modification of specific DNA target sequences.Genetic improvement is the use of genetic editing technology to enhance certain functions of normal human,making them in an ultranormal state.The term ‘genetic improvement’ is a technical term.As the choice of normative terms,the improvement of human genes is more reasonable than human improvement and genetic improvement.On the one hand,the scope of human improvement is too large,including improved methods that enhance human functions in other ways.On the other hand,genetic improvement is difficult to describe the target of technology,but human beings have special significance as the target of improvement.According to different evaluation criteria,the improvement of human genes has different meanings.To determine its meaning needs to consider the choice of evaluation criteria.that is,the evaluation criteria for the improvement of human genes include constructivism,normal operation,beyond the average level of species,beyond the maximum level of species,well-being maximization method,modified well-being maximization method and functional interpretation method.Among them,the constructivist method is more suitable for the study of the right of parents to their children to improve their genes.The issue of the right of genetic improvement is a difficult problem in legal area.When the institutional arguments cannot reach a unified conclusion,it will inevitably require the participation of general practical arguments,that is,the participation of moral philosophy.In area of moral philosophy,the discussion about the right of genetic improvement is divided into the supportive argument of liberal eugenics and the reason for its opposition.Liberal eugenics developed the old eugenics from the perspective of rights.There are mainly two ways to demonstrate the right of genetic improvement,one is argumentation by analogy,and the other is the principle of ethical individualism.The objections to liberal eugenics include objection of disrespecting for talents,inequality,and disrespecting for the autonomy of potential candidates.Among them,the first two objections can be answered,but the third involves the ultimate commitment of liberal eugenics to autonomy,which is the strongest objection it faces.Liberal eugenics responds to the objection of the autonomy of potentials by proposing the improvement by a general-purpose means.This is a way to improve the children’s ability to adapt to various life plans.So far,the key to testing whether parents have the right to make genetic improvements to their children is to test whether the improvement by a general-purpose means is justified.The key to testing whether the improvement by a general-purpose means is justified is to test whether it can respect the autonomy of potential people.Habermas’ s book “The Future of Human Nature”which refute liberal eugenics by emphasizing the autonomy of potentials is representative.However,current scholars mostly understand the meaning of autonomy in Habermas’ s texts as a person’s ability to make real choices among many meaningful life plans,and genetic improvement by a general-purpose means can make the actors and improvers have the same intentions,so it can respond to autonomy issues.However,based on the above understanding,whether to infringe the autonomy of the potential person will completely depend on the person’s knowledge and experience of genetic improvement.This understanding weakens Habermas’ s argument on autonomy,making his argument lack of standardization.In fact,the meaning of autonomy of potentials advocated by Habermas is different from the general meaning of autonomy,which requires human autonomy to have an equal life premise.Habermas adds three qualifiers to autonomy: “Physical Vulnerability”,“Social Independence” and“Universal”.The genetic improvement by a general-purpose means belongs to the manipulation behavior,without the hypothetical consent of the children,so that the prerequisite of equality in life cannot be met.Not only that,Habermas’ s argument develops Sandel’s argument in the sense of discussing human morality,and can refute the objection of genetic determinism in the sense of ideological guidance,it is persuasive as a representative of the objection of potential autonomy.Therefore,based on the interpretation of the autonomy of potentials advocated by Habermas,the genetic improvement by a general-purpose means is difficult to satisfy the argument of potential autonomy,and it is difficult to justify the right of genetic improvement. |
