Reflection On Human Gene Editing In The Perspective Of Legal Philosophy

The study of human gene editing from the perspective of legal philosophy is helpful to theoretically respond to the question of what attitude or standard position the law should adopt for gene technology.In the domain of non-therapeutic gene editing,that is,modified gene editing,the argumentation method of welfare theory and its derived risk argumentation and scientist argumentation method are all subject to the limitations of the method itself and may lead to uncertainty in position.Exclude in advance.Based on the rights-based approach,the article demonstrates from three aspects: individual rights,social justice,and human perspective.From a personal perspective,gene editing should be prohibited.First,the person being edited has certain rights worthy of protection and respect.Gene editing should be prohibited because it constitutes a violation of rights.Based on the understanding of the multiple connotations of life and the maintenance of the dignity of the embryo,the embryo should have a protected status in the law because of its potential to develop into a complete moral subject,and it should have independent choices and decisions s right.Whether the parents change the edited person according to their personal preferences or the state according to the needs of society,it is a disregard and trampling on their human dignity,and it is also a change to the essence of humanity.At the same time,the changes that are not allowed by the editor are a violation of human autonomy.Second,when the personal rights of the person being edited conflicts with the reproductive rights of the prospective parents,the individual rights should be protected first,as an essential reason for defending against gene editing.On the one hand,due to the inherent contradictions of the autonomy of the two parties and the logic of the concept of rights,the prospective parents 'freedom of reproduction cannot contain the freedom of gene editing.Even if it is recognized that the parental freedom of prospective parents contains certain rights that point to the embryo,because of the essential reason that the person has moral independence that cannot be used as a tool,the right to protect the embryo from being edited should be given priority.On the other hand,when the parental rights of parents conflict with the rights of the child,according to human rights theory,the child can enjoy the right to choose the future as an independent subject and the basic freedom from being forced and interfered by others.Changing the gene itself deprives the child of future development other possibilities.From the perspective of society,gene editing should be banned because of its inevitable violation of social justice.First,if gene editing is carried out in a way that individuals are free to purchase gene editing services.That is,in the gene free market model,treating gene technology as a product is allowed to flow freely in the market,which will lead to "genetic two-level differentiation" and then lead to social class differentiation and class solidification.According to the egalitarian view of justice,this is unfair.On the one hand,gene editing will not only cause inequality among different social classes,but also cause direct inequality among individuals,hurting the ethical virtue of "effort",and cannot be morally affirmed.On the other hand,the social injustice caused by gene editing cannot be remedied,whether in the field of pure wealth income or other aspects.At the same time,with Rawls' s exposition on justice,in this free market model,the two undisputed principles of basic freedom sharing and open status will be violated.Second,gene editing is implemented in a government-led manner.On the one hand,government-led gene editing may bring human images and human life patterns close to a single state.If such an irreversible value choice is not determined by the subject,it will inevitably violate the value of "plurality".Human beings should have a variety of choices for the future,and the reckless pursuit of a single value will often cause huge disasters in political practice.On the other hand,government-led gene editing cannot cope with the challenges from "eugenics".More importantly,this model must respond to possible abuses of government power.Once the government has full control of this power to determine the future direction of the person,the lack of a careful attitude towards this will inevitably lead to more serious other consequences.Thus,whether it is the free market model or the government-led model,proponents of gene editing do not adequately respond to the moral hazard criticism of social justice.From a human perspective,gene editing should also be prohibited.First,human nature is unique,and any human behavior that attempts to change these basic characteristics should be prohibited.If gene editing attempts to change these,it is wrong and cannot be justified in a moral or legal sense.Second,because the human gene pool itself is the common wealth of all mankind,changing this gene pool poses a moral risk to unborn future humans.Human beings do not have the right to determine the basis of morality.If human morality is put into some kind of uncertainty,it may cause future people to fail or completely miss the opportunity of a proper moral life.Third,altering the human gene pool will lead to flawed or insufficient gene storage when humans respond to unknown variables in the future world.