Question

Sandel writes, Medical intervention to cure or prevent illness or restore the injured to health does not desecrate nature but honors it. Healing sickness or injury does not override a child’s natural capacities but permits them to flourish. (p.13) However, Kamm thinks this is a bad distinction between treatment and enhancement. Explain Kamm’s main reason(s). It’s okay not to mention all the reasons.) Try to defend Sandel’s original point from Kamm’s objection. If you agree with Kamm, then briefly explain why that defense does not work.

Answer 1

Sandel, in his statement, advocates morality in medical intervention in illness. He states that nature should be honored. Kamm believes that the morality shouldn't be brought into this matter. He critisizes by asking why we should honor the bad parts of nature, like HIV and cancer. The natural and good are distinct concepts. His other argument is that if Sandel was implying that we can interfere with bad parts of nature that it induces upon its good parts, then it means we can even do genetic engineering and probably make life eternal.

I agree with Kamm. As mentioned above, in both the interpretations of Sandel's statement, Kamm's argument proves that there are loopholes. We do need to interfere with nature's aspects when they are affecting us, but should not go to the level of changing a complete process.