Many surprising factors contribute to economic success. One such factor is height. According to a study reported by J Polit Econ, “For both men and women, the relationship is striking: a one-inch increase in height is associated on average with a 1.4 percent to 2.9 percent increase in weekly earnings, and a 1.0 percent to 2.3 percent increase in average hourly earnings.” On average, the taller we are, the more money we make. This prompt will focus on the ethics of enhancement and not whether it is morally right for taller people to make more money than those with a shorter stature.
Enhancement surgery is now available to lengthen limbs so that a person can become significantly taller (six-plus inches). See the following video of a news story about a person who underwent this procedure. As the video states, these procedures are quite costly, ranging from $80,000 to $150,000.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF1djaNqimk (Video)
Let's consider treatment versus enhancement. By treatment, we mean to restore a person's body to the status it would have without illness or injury. By enhancement, we suggest taking a person's body beyond the status it would have when free from disease or injury. Discuss the moral implications of pursuing enhancement surgery by selecting one of the ethical perspectives (prompts) below:
Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom with what a utilitarian would say using its core principles of welfare, impartiality, sum-ranking, and consequences about the moral permissibility of human enhancements. Explain how one of these theories supports your view. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. (USLOs 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
Contrast what a Kantian would say according to its core principles of universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity with what a utilitarian would say using its core principles of welfare, impartiality, sum-ranking, and consequences about the moral permissibility of human enhancements. Explain how one of these theories supports your view. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. (USLOs 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
References
Sample Answer
The growing economic advantage afforded by physical traits, such as height, introduces a profound ethical challenge in the distinction between medical treatment and enhancement. Treatment seeks to restore a person's body to its natural, disease-free status, while enhancement aims to take the body beyond that baseline, such as undergoing limb-lengthening surgery costing between $80,000 and $150,000 to achieve a significant increase in stature. Given the established correlation that "a one-inch increase in height is associated on average with a 1.4 percent to 2.9 percent increase in weekly earnings," the procedure moves from personal preference to economic strategy. To assess the moral permissibility of such human enhancements, this essay will contrast the perspectives of Kantian deontology and Utilitarianism, ultimately arguing that the Utilitarian framework offers a more practical, albeit conditional, justification for the procedure.The growing economic advantage afforded by physical traits, such as height, introduces a profound ethical challenge in the distinction between medical treatment and enhancement. Treatment seeks to restore a person's body to its natural, disease-free status, while enhancement aims to take the body beyond that baseline, such as undergoing limb-lengthening surgery costing between $80,000 and $150,000 to achieve a significant increase in stature. Given the established correlation that "a one-inch increase in height is associated on average with a 1.4 percent to 2.9 percent increase in weekly earnings," the procedure moves from personal preference to economic strategy. To assess the moral permissibility of such human enhancements, this essay will contrast the perspectives of Kantian deontology and Utilitarianism, ultimately arguing that the Utilitarian framework offers a more practical, albeit conditional, justification for the procedure.
A Utilitarian perspective, grounded in the core principles of welfare, sum-ranking, and consequences, evaluates an action based on its capacity to maximize overall happiness or minimize suffering. Because it adheres to impartiality, the greatest good for the greatest number is paramount. Applying this to enhancement, a Utilitarian would conduct a cost-benefit analysis. On the benefit side, the individual gain is clear: a higher income, better job prospects, and increased personal satisfaction, all contributing positively to individual welfare. The economic data suggests a significant benefit, as the increase in height translates to a 1.0 percent to 2.3 percent increase in average hourly earnings, potentially providing a substantial return on the massive investment. However, the costs are substantial. The procedure involves extreme pain, high physical risk, and a financial commitment of $80,000 to $150,000. Under the principle of sum-ranking, a Utilitarian would be compelled to weigh this private gain against the collective opportunity cost: could this immense sum of money be used elsewhere to generate more welfare, perhaps by funding necessary medical treatments for multiple people? The moral permissibility hinges entirely on whether the total aggregate happiness generated by the enhancement outweighs the collective suffering and missed opportunities, a difficult calculation that often leans against non-essential, resource-intensive acts.
In contrast, Kantian ethics, or deontology, approaches the issue through the lens of duty and the Categorical Imperative, emphasizing universalizability and treating humanity as an end in itself. For a Kantian, the morality of enhancement is determined by whether the underlying maxim (the rule guiding the action) can be rationally willed by everyone without contradiction. The maxim of "undergoing risky, expensive surgery for non-therapeutic, competitive advantage" fails the test of universalizability. If everyone who desired an economic edge underwent the surgery, the advantage would be neutralized, but the practice would create a new societal duty to be taller simply to function normally, thereby coercing individuals and causing immense collective physical and financial harm. Furthermore, the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, which demands reciprocity and treating humanity