As part of my academic experience at Harvard, I look a class at Harvard Law School titled “Ethics, Economics, and the Law” with the brilliant Professor Michael Sandel. My classmates were a cross-section of graduate students from the Law School, Kennedy School, and Public Health School. I was the only Business School student and really loved the diverse perspectives from the class.
Choosing sperm or egg donors based on criteria such as height, ethnicity, and education often elicits discomfort, commonly described in our class as an "icky" feeling. In contrast, we seem comfortable applying similar filters in the realm of romantic matches on dating apps. This incongruity exposes a nuanced ethical landscape where societal norms and personal preferences intersect. The essay will explore the psychological and moral underpinnings of this dissonance, considering the implications of applying selective criteria to one's potential life partner versus choosing genetic material for procreation. For scope, this post will focus on monogamous, heterosexual relationships where the couple intends to procreate.
Love, Dating, and Marriage in the West: From Tradition to Technology
Love, dating, and marriage have undergone profound transformations throughout human history, reflecting the evolving values and societal structures of different eras. In ancient societies, marriages were often arranged for economic, political, or familial reasons, with little emphasis on personal choice or romantic love. The Middle Ages saw the rise of “courtly love”, a concept that idealized romantic passion and elevated it to a noble pursuit (le Chapelain).
The Renaissance witnessed a shift towards more individual autonomy in matters of the heart (Krohn), and the Enlightenment further emphasized personal happiness and companionship in marriage (“Love, History of”). However, it was the 19th century that marked a significant turning point with the emergence of the romantic ideal, elevating love as a central component of marriage (“The History of Romance”).
Moving into the 20th century, societal attitudes continued to evolve. The mid-century witnessed the rise of dating as a distinct social practice, with young people engaging in casual, supervised outings (“The fascinating history of how courtship became 'dating'”). The sexual revolution of the 1960s challenged traditional norms, emphasizing personal freedom and exploration (“Second-wave feminism (article)”). The latter half of the century saw a surge in divorces and a shift towards more egalitarian partnerships (Ortiz and Roser).
Fast forward to the 21st century, and the landscape of love and dating has been revolutionized by technology, particularly dating apps. These platforms are both a continuation of traditional practices and a paradigm shift, altering the dynamics of how individuals connect.
Dating apps, such as Tinder, Bumble, Raya, and Hinge, streamline finding a romantic partner by leveraging algorithms and user preferences explicitly stated in the app. Unlike the meticulous courtship rituals of the past, dating apps reduce the effort required in the initial stages of connection (Hinge). Users are encouraged to discover their preferences through the “algorithm” of the app and direct messaging, fostering a more dynamic and flexible approach to partner selection.
An unexpected consequence of dating apps is the rise in interracial marriages (Hinge). While one might suppose dating apps would result in more parochial matches, given the ability to filter at scale, Hinge finds that the increased accessibility to a diverse pool of potential partners transcends geographical and cultural boundaries. Consequently, people are more likely to form connections with individuals from different racial backgrounds, challenging historical norms and promoting inclusivity.
However, the seemingly limitless options presented by dating apps also come with moral considerations. Hinge wants their users to discover their preferences on the app (Hinge), rather than bringing rigid selection criteria to the app, which would both promote a more inclusive platform and create more supply of eligible matches. All users can filter by age and location. Premium users pay a monthly fee in order to filter by height, religion, education, children, pets, drinking, and drugs. Therefore, Hinge has chosen to use a fee to let the market limit, rather than impose a ban on filters that they believe to be more morally questionable, though these filters are also the ones that users have a high willingness to pay for. This policy is beneficial to both the moral and financial objectives of the company.
Yet, Hinge intentionally restricts certain filters, such as income level and network (Hinge), potentially at the expense of earning more money from premium users who would pay a higher premium for these features. This intentional limitation raises questions about the moral boundaries in the quest for love and a future co-parent. By making it purposefully harder to filter based on income and network, these platforms navigate the delicate balance between facilitating connections and avoiding the reinforcement of socioeconomic hierarchies. In practice, individuals often find ways to indirectly consider income and network, using professions as proxies.
The Ethical Considerations of Selection Criteria in Choosing a Romantic Partner
In the complex realm of romantic relationships, the ethical considerations surrounding the criteria used to select a partner become crucial. By examining the moral permissibility of various selection criteria, we aim to understand the nuances involved in the choices individuals make when seeking romantic connections. Our class discussion on markets and employment discrimination from October 23, informs our analysis on how to evaluate the selection criteria used to select a romantic partner.
The first ethical consideration involves questioning the legitimacy of having preferences in selecting a romantic partner at all. I believe it is unreasonable to label the act of having criteria as inherently immoral, we should instead focus on discerning what makes certain criteria discriminatory. Moreover, imposing a moratorium on having criteria at all would be very difficult to enforce. We must analyze the origins and implications of these preferences to understand if they perpetuate harmful stereotypes or unjust societal norms.
The second consideration is whether certain selection criteria, if producing positive value, should be allowed. Let us consider, for example, what if the disclosure of income or net worth motivates individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds to form relationships, potentially leading to economic mobility? While a utilitarian perspective might view economic mobility as positive overall, there is a need to weigh potential negative consequences, such as inherent inequalities in the relationship and cultural disparities arising from newfound wealth. Evaluating the net societal impact and addressing potential drawbacks offers one lens to determine the ethical permissibility of such selection criteria.
The third ethical consideration revolves around distinguishing between biologically immutable preferences, such as height or skin color, and more mutable preferences like education, net worth, or religion. Is it ethically justifiable to prevent selection based on immutable characteristics, given the lack of agency for individuals to alter these traits? On one hand, proponents of individual autonomy argue that people should have the freedom to choose their romantic partners based on personal preferences, including those related to immutable characteristics. Respecting individuals' agency in making personal choices, even if those choices involve preferences for traits that cannot be changed, aligns with the principle of autonomy. People may argue that interference in such personal matters could infringe upon individuals' right to pursue happiness in their own way. On the other hand, critics argue that preventing selection based on immutable characteristics can perpetuate unjust discrimination and contribute to societal inequalities. Immutable characteristics, such as race, gender, or disability, are often unrelated to an individual's character or abilities. Restricting choices based on these traits may lead to exclusion, reinforce stereotypes, and contribute to broader patterns of discrimination in society.
As an attempt to evaluate the ethics of discriminating on immutable criteria in the case of employment, in class we examined examples where preference based on immutable preferences is deemed acceptable, such as wheelchair accessibility in airlines. However, wheelchair accessibility seems like an accommodation, rather than a preference. Moreover, the ethical considerations become more nuanced when comparing romantic partner selection to scenarios where discrimination based on immutable characteristics is deemed acceptable. For instance, considerations of physical accessibility in public spaces might involve accommodating individuals with disabilities, and acknowledging the importance of inclusivity. However, the distinction lies in the nature of the relationship; whereas public spaces aim to serve a diverse population, personal relationships are inherently more individualized and subjective. Therefore, I suppose not allowing immutable preferences doesn’t hold here.
This discussion underscores the complex interplay between technology, personal values, and societal expectations. While dating apps enhance accessibility and broaden the horizons of romantic connections, they also grapple with ethical challenges inherent in their design and enable users to select partners based on specific criteria. In our October 23 class on Markets and Employment Discrimination, we debated which stakeholder is responsible for setting norms and limits for the market. We asked: When does the market correct itself? When does the government need to step in? When is it the responsibility of the company? In the case of dating apps, I would argue that it is the responsibility and role of a private company to impose its sense of morality upon users' selection criteria.
In conclusion, the history of love, dating, and marriage has been a narrative of constant evolution, shaped by societal values and technological advancements. Dating apps represent a continuation of the human desire for connection, while simultaneously ushering in a paradigm shift that alters the dynamics of partner selection. The reduction of effort, encouragement of organic preference discovery, and the impact on interracial marriages showcase the transformative potential of these platforms. However, the intentional imposition of moral limits on specific selection criteria adds a layer of complexity to the ethical landscape of dating apps, urging us to critically examine the intersection of love and technology in our modern world.
Genetic Engineering Gives Us the “Ick”
The moral boundaries that society imposes on various market activities differ significantly when it comes to partner selection, sperm/egg donor choices, and the selection of a baby's genes. This discrepancy is rooted in deep-seated ethical considerations that reflect our understanding of human relationships, diversity, historical context, and the sanctity of life.
Firstly, the notion of "playing God" invokes a visceral discomfort when applied to matters of human life. While partner selection involves a level of personal agency, the intentional crafting of a child's genetic makeup introduces an element of god-like control that many find ethically unsettling. The ethical dilemma here lies in the potential consequences of manipulating life at its most fundamental level, disrupting the natural course of evolution or what it means to be human.
Secondly, the fear that a world devoid of diversity would be less interesting and worse off serves as a compelling argument against unrestrained genetic engineering. The richness of human experience is intricately linked to the variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and traits within our society. Overly controlled genetic selection threatens to homogenize the human population, diminishing the vibrancy that diversity brings to our collective existence. One critique of this argument would be to push back against making a moral decision based on the outcome (e.g. we want a world that looks like [X]). Critics would find a procedural standard (e.g. not allowing selection based on immutable criteria, such as race) to be a more compelling argument.
The specter of eugenics casts a long shadow over the idea of designer babies. Historically, eugenics has been used to justify discriminatory practices, leading to atrocities in the name of racial purity and superiority. The discomfort associated with designer babies stems from the fear of perpetuating these discriminatory ideologies, raising concerns about the potential consequences of unchecked genetic selection. As we discussed in our class on Oct. 23 on Markets and Employment Discrimination, the historical lens matters immensely. Just as racial discrimination in the American South during the Jim Crow era (Crow) makes racial discrimination in today’s workplace especially unequal, discrimination perpetuated genetic engineering is especially immoral given the fraught history between discrimination and eugenics.
One egregious example of racism within the context of eugenics is the implementation of forced sterilization programs targeting minority populations in the United States. Beginning in the early 20th century and continuing for decades, state-sponsored eugenics programs disproportionately affected African American and other marginalized communities. Virginia, for instance, enacted a eugenics-inspired sterilization law in 1924, which led to the forced sterilization of thousands of individuals deemed "unfit" to reproduce. A significant number of these sterilizations were performed on Black and poor white women, reflecting the racial and socio-economic biases inherent in the eugenics movement (“University of Vermont”).
Nazi Germany's implementation of eugenics during the 1930s and 1940s represents another harrowing example of racism intertwined with genocidal intent. Under the guise of promoting Aryan racial purity, the Nazi regime engaged in a systematic program of forced sterilization, euthanasia, and ultimately, the Holocaust. The eugenics principles embraced by the Nazis were deeply rooted in racist ideologies, with the intention of eliminating what they considered undesirable racial elements, including Jews, Romani people, disabled individuals, and others (Nicosia and Huener). The racist dimensions of Nazi eugenics and the role of the medical profession in carrying out these atrocities should make us thoroughly question genetic engineering when it’s framed as a scientific breakthrough, especially when it has the potential to enable racial discrimination.
Moreover, the history of eugenics in the United States was enabled by the access to data and record-keeping of institutions. For example, Charles Davenport, a prominent eugenicist, founded the Eugenics Record Office, which aimed to collect data on the genetic traits of various populations (“Eugenics Record Office”). These ideas contributed to the institutionalization of discriminatory policies and practices, including immigration restrictions based on race and ethnicity. If public institutions or private companies can collect and maintain these systems of record for nefarious purposes, there must be a system of checks and balances to prevent misuse of this data.
Thirdly, the argument for the spontaneity of love and the sacredness of chance encounters at a bar raises questions about the value of effort and work in partner selection. Some argue that intentionally filtering for a partner may diminish the special and sacred nature of those serendipitous moments. This perspective questions whether making the pre-dating process easier, as facilitated by dating apps, sacrifices a unique depth of connection that emerges from the unpredictability of human encounters. I find this specific argument to be a bit weak because there is still much work to be done to build and maintain a relationship.
Additionally, there appears to be another distinction between selecting a partner and picking a baby's genes. We actively choose to spend time with both romantic partners and babies and make decisions that might be in their best interest, sometimes at the expense of our self-interest. This already puts those two relationships in a category that’s very different than others in our lives. However, babies are not merely external entities; they are part of us, carrying our genetic legacy forward. Therefore, decisions about their genetic engineering might even serve to be a secondhand reflection of ourselves, especially in considering which genes or traits in our partner might complement our own.
While the ethical implications of genetic engineering are complex and multifaceted, the most obvious pushback to my argument against genetic engineering is that there exists a compelling philosophical argument in favor of using this technology to prevent disabilities in offspring. In fact, the biggest critic of the argument laid out in this section would argue that it is not only morally permissible to use genetic engineering to prevent your baby from having a disability, but that parents have this responsibility to the world and their children.
Drawing inspiration from the principles of utilitarianism, which posits the maximization of overall happiness and well-being as the ultimate moral goal (Maxwell and Driver), one can argue that employing genetic engineering to eliminate potential disabilities contributes to a more flourishing society. The avoidance of disability not only enhances the individual's quality of life but also diminishes the societal burden associated with caring for individuals with disabilities, thereby promoting greater overall happiness.
Additionally, Julian Savulescu, in his work "Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children," argues for a principle that advocates for choosing the best possible traits for future generations. According to Savulescu, parents have a moral obligation to actively select the genetic makeup of their offspring to maximize their well-being and minimize the likelihood of preventable harm (Savulescu). In the context of preventing disabilities, this aligns with the idea that parents should use available genetic technologies to ensure the birth of children who are more likely to lead fulfilling lives and make positive contributions to society.
In response, philosopher Elizabeth Barnes, known for her work on disability and social justice, would likely critique the ableist view of the world by challenging the deeply ingrained societal norms and assumptions that marginalize individuals with disabilities (Barnes). Barnes has argued against what she calls the "individualist" perspective, which tends to place the burden of adaptation on individuals with disabilities rather than addressing systemic barriers. In her book "The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability," Barnes emphasizes the need for a more inclusive and structural approach to understanding disability, challenging the ableist assumption that the absence of certain abilities equates to a diminished quality of life. She critiques the tendency to measure worth and value solely through the lens of traditional abilities, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of human flourishing that recognizes and celebrates the diversity of human experiences, regardless of physical or cognitive differences. Barnes' critique invites a reevaluation of societal attitudes and structures to create a world that values and accommodates the full spectrum of human abilities and experiences.
In conclusion, the moral limits to markets in the realms of partner selection, sperm/egg donor choices, and selecting a baby's genes are complex and multifaceted. Rooted in concerns about playing god, preserving diversity, avoiding the pitfalls of eugenics, valuing spontaneity in love, and acknowledging the intimate connection with our offspring, these limits reflect our collective ethical compass. As we navigate the frontiers of technology and personal choice, it becomes imperative to strike a delicate balance between progress and the preservation of the inherent sanctity and diversity of human life.
The Shifting Landscape: The Interplay of Gen Z Values in Partner Selection and Genetic Modification
As we stand on the cusp of a new era, the future of partner selection, love, and procreation appears to be undergoing a profound transformation, shaped by the unique characteristics of Generation Z. The introspective nature and values-oriented mindset of this generation are anticipated to reshape traditional paradigms and introduce novel considerations that demand philosophical scrutiny.
The evolution of dating and partner selection is intricately tied to the values and inclinations of each generation, as exemplified in the historical section of this paper. Generation Z, characterized by a heightened sense of introspection and a focus on long-term compatibility, is likely to demand a shift in the paradigms of dating apps (Parham). Unlike their predecessors, who often prioritized location, similar interests, and looks, Gen Z seeks meaningful connections based on shared values and a deeper understanding of one another (Klein). The emergence of social dating apps like Marriage Pact, designed to cater to these values and the need for authentic connections, is anticipated to gain prominence, especially in the post-COVID landscape when the yearning for genuine human connection is more pronounced.
While there’s no data to prove this next point, I want to propose something quite out there. I believe that the introspective nature of Generation Z in partner selection will extend beyond the realm of shared values and into the realm of procreation. As they meticulously curate their online avatars, manipulating and adjusting physical attributes, it becomes evident that Gen Z is open to the idea of actively shaping their futures, in a much more intentional way. Could we take these characteristics and propose that GenZ would therefore be more open to not only be more explicit about choosing a partner based on their quantifiable values and characteristics, but would also be more open to changing the genes they pass down to the next generation. This inclination towards genetic customization would potentially signify a departure from the more passive role traditionally associated with procreation. Gen Z's willingness to engage with genetic alterations would imply a future where the very fabric of human existence is subject to intentional modification, ushering in an era of unprecedented control over our biological legacy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the ethical considerations surrounding the selection of biologically immutable criteria for a baby, aside from preventing disabilities, appear morally impermissible due to the historical associations with eugenics and discrimination. The paper underscores the distinction between choosing criteria for a life partner and selecting traits for a future child, emphasizing the unique moral complexities inherent in each scenario. However, a notable tension emerges concerning criteria such as race, religion, and wealth, which often play a role in individuals' preferences for romantic partners. While these criteria have a history of problematic implications, dating apps have demonstrated the potential to equalize and foster inclusivity by facilitating more interracial marriages and connecting people beyond their immediate and socio-economic networks. Now the unresolved question emerges: Should dating apps be more or less explicit about criteria, given their historical impact and transformative potential in shaping modern relationships?
Navigating this tension requires a nuanced examination of the power dynamics inherent in dating apps. On one hand, dating apps can challenge historical inequalities by broadening the scope of potential connections. On the other hand, enabling users to select matches based on explicit criteria related to race, religion, or wealth could perpetuate discriminatory patterns. Striking a balance between acknowledging individual preferences and fostering inclusivity is crucial and prompts further reflection on the role of dating apps in shaping societal norms, advocating for ethical considerations that enhance equality while respecting individual autonomy in the pursuit of meaningful connections. Consequently, I suggest that dating apps could ask for more data on users for their internal algorithms to enhance compatibility without allowing users to explicitly filter based on certain criteria. This way, users can still exercise preference in who they choose, but their feed shouldn't prevent people of a certain race, religion, or wealth from being shown. This approach, while not without challenges, aims to respond transparently to evolving preferences in partner selection, avoiding discriminatory practices and fostering a more equitable and inclusive landscape for love and romantic partnerships.
Works Cited
Barnes, Elizabeth. The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability. OUP Oxford, 2017. Accessed 8 December 2023.
Crow, Jim. Jim Crow Laws: Definition, Facts & Timeline | HISTORY, 28 February 2018, https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/jim-crow-laws. Accessed 8 December 2023.
“Eugenics Record Office.” Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, https://www.cshl.edu/archives/institutional-collections/eugenics-record-office/. Accessed 8 December 2023.
“The fascinating history of how courtship became 'dating.'” NY Post, 15 May 2016, https://nypost.com/2016/05/15/the-fascinating-history-of-how-courtship-became-dating/. Accessed 8 December 2023.
Hinge. COO. 04 12 2023.
“The History of Romance.” National Women's History Museum, 13 February 2017, https://www.womenshistory.org/articles/history-romance. Accessed 8 December 2023.
Klein, Jessica. “Are Gen Z the most pragmatic about sex?” BBC, 4 January 2022, https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220104-are-gen-z-more-pragmatic-about-love-and-sex. Accessed 8 December 2023.
Krohn, Deborah L. “Courtship and Betrothal in the Italian Renaissance | Essay.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art, https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cour/hd_cour.htm. Accessed 8 December 2023.
le Chapelain, André. “Courtly love | Definition, History, Rules, & Examples.” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/art/courtly-love. Accessed 8 December 2023.
“Love, History of.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/love-his/. Accessed 8 December 2023.
Maxwell, John, and Julia Driver. “The History of Utilitarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 27 March 2009, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/. Accessed 8 December 2023.
Nicosia, Francis R., and Jonathan Huener, editors. Medicine and Medical Ethics in Nazi Germany: Origins, Practices, Legacies. Berghahn Books, 2002. Accessed 8 December 2023.
Ortiz, Esteban, and Max Roser. “Marriages and Divorces.” Our World in Data, 25 July 2020, https://ourworldindata.org/marriages-and-divorces. Accessed 8 December 2023.
Parham, Jason. “Gen Z Is Leaving Dating Apps Behind.” WIRED, 18 November 2023, https://www.wired.com/story/end-of-dating-apps/. Accessed 8 December 2023.
Savulescu, J. “Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children.” PubMed, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12058767/. Accessed 8 December 2023.
“Second-wave feminism (article).” Khan Academy, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera/1960s-america/a/second-wave-feminism. Accessed 8 December 2023.
“University of Vermont.” Virginia Eugenics, https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/VA/VA.html. Accessed 8 December 2023.