In his paper “Moral Permissibility and Desert in the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction,” Ozan Gurcan takes a fresh look at the therapy-enhancement distinction and argues that, while the distinction does not establish rigid moral boundaries, it nevertheless serves an important purpose because it differentiates between interventions that are, generally speaking, owed to individuals as a matter of justice (i.e., therapies) and those that are not (i.e., enhancements). Because therapies help to promote justice in society, therapies are always permitted and, in many cases required, whereas enhancements may be, at best, permitted. In this commentary, I argue that we would be concerned about the morality of genetic enhancements even if they did not raise issues of social justice and I propose that other key moral ideas, such as the concept of human nature, may also be important in establishing the boundary between therapy and enhancement.