Customized embryonic stem cells offer the potential to provide scientist more information about the development of diseased cells. By learning the derivation of specific diseases scientist would then have the opportunity to explore ways of preventing or treating the diseased cells. Researchers could potentially identify ways to treat cancer and genetic diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, juvenile diabetes etc. Most people do not need to go far from their immediate circle of acquaintances to know people who are affected by these diseases. It seems that such research should be supported. Of course this new field of research has generated a number ethical concerns. I think that most people would agree that a utilitarian approach to the problem is not satisfactory, but why is it a problem? Such reasoning affects not only the subject i.e. the embryos but also those making the decisions to support such research i.e. potentially me. Consider the dilemma in the Russian Novel Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov the protagonist in Doestoyevski’s story is convinced that an old miserly woman who runs a pawn shop could be killed, so he can use the money to help the poor. I do not mean to draw a direct parrallel with embryonic stem cells. However the consequences of Raskolnikov's actions are interesting. As the story unfolds the very act leads to his own destruction. The destruction in his life is not simply the punishment from the law, but the punishment that comes from the reasoning that led to the act. The book has a great happy ending that I do not want to spoil if you haven’t read the work. The story provides an interesting reflection on utilitarian reasoning. No ethical decisions are made in a vacuum. I am concerned that such research will have unforeseen consequences for the way we ascribe worth to individuals. The concern that I fear is not simply the protection of the “unborn”, but the way such ascription of worth will affect the way potential supporters of the research (again me) view themselves.
posted by Luke at
7:29 PM
5 Comments:
I tend to agree with your post. While the motivations of those in favor of embryonic stem-cell research are admirable, I think the ethical concerns you raise are important to consider. At risk of overstating the obvious, regardless of which side one comes down on the issue, one must be willing to determine whether the ends justify the means. Given my view of the sanctity of human life and my (admittedly) limited understanding of the intricacies of the issue, I would have to answer in the negative. In reaching this decision I, like you, am considering the embryos, the lives of those doing the research, and the lives of those who benefit from the research--lives that are not limited to this "mortal coil." Further, I think the fact that we are speaking of potentiality--the research might lead to treatments or cures--gives me more reason to pause. It is possible my view might change given more evidence or more compelling arguments in favor of the research; however, I have a feeling that even if promising results were a sure thing, I would still have my reservations.
By
Anonymous, at 8:45 PM
Genuflect,
Thanks for the comment. One of my concerns is that if we are asking the question of whether or not the ends justify the means...we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps that is an overstatement. It seems that our ability to self-deception makes such utilitarian reasoning quite ineffective.
Luke
By
Luke, at 9:15 PM
Hello Luke. I share the same distaste for utilitarian arguments; however, they do seem to occasionally come into play. As you have mentioned elsewhere, "just war" is an example. I believe we should try to avoid war, but there are times when it seems there is no alternative (e.g., WWII). In the face of these injustices, it seems that (unless one is a pacifist) one is forced to choose the lesser of two evils. The question at the core of this type of decision is essentially one of whether the ends justify the means. Even if it is not a conscious question that motivates our decision making, I cannot see how it doesn't crop up.
The same question was probably in the minds of many of those brave people who hid Jews from their Nazi persecutors--this is, in great part, what makes it such a moral dilemma. In this context, another way of asking the question is, "Does the saving of a life justify my deception."
While I should think about this more, my initial reaction to the last sentence of your most recent post is one of qualified agreement: self-deception makes all reasoning potentially ineffective.
~genuflect is a pun
By
Anonymous, at 8:19 AM
Neal,
I posted a response to this a few days ago and never realized that it did not "take".
I completely agree that self-deception affects all reasoning....or.. I wonder to what extent the scientific method can help in this regard. Certainly there is some degree to which controls are able to be fixed or recognized to allow some degree of objectivity. I assume H-was would not agree, but is he overstating the point?
My initial reaction to the whole deceiving of the Nazis scenario is to respond that it is not immoral to refuse to participate in immoral actions. It seems like the Nazis and other dictators like to play such a game with the morally scrupulous. Perhaps their scruples are misplaced. I have heard that the Jehovah's witness were so faithful to their word, the Nazi's would let them out of the prison camp, knowing they would return. It strikes me as particulary twisted for some evil group to use the virtues of others to further their twisted purposes.
Luke
By
Luke, at 8:59 AM
Hey Luke. It's been a while since I've been able to visit your blog, and I just noticed your response. I also note that you have moved on to other topics, and I don't want to beat a dead horse; however, your comments sparked a couple of thoughts.
I think we agree more than we disagree on this topic. I know that I was the one to introduce the Nazi example into this discussion, so I don't want to harp on it and stray too far from your original post. However, I find your perspective fascinating: "My initial reaction to the whole deceiving of the Nazis scenario is to respond that it is not immoral to refuse to participate in immoral actions."
I have heard others voice a similar view (just not as succinctly). I'm just not sure what separates your view from a (modified) situational ethic. Of course, you may subscribe to Fletcher's thought, in which case, you are not bothered by this similarity. I just don't know where one would stop. What if, instead of lying to the Nazi, I pulled out a gun and shot him? Does my desire to save a life and to stop further atrocities negate the sinful nature of my action? In other words, would this situation justify murder? There is certainly a difference between not participating in immoral actions by not doing anything and not participating in immoral actions by lying. The Jehovah’s Witness example is a perfect illustration. I think it less than wise to return to the prison camp. However, I think it sinful to lie. Maybe an alternative is to simply stay in the camp. I find this example easier to handle because there is more self-interest involved. Is it right to lie in order to gain your freedom?
I know I'm being a little hypocritical here (Is there much difference between this and asking if the end justifies the means?) but this is a result of my own struggle with the topic. I am familiar with the oft-cited biblical references in support of considering such situational ethics appropriate (e.g., the Rahab story). However, I just can't help wondering how Jesus would handle the situation (you know me well enough to know that I am not a subscriber to the whole WWJD fad--nor the Sheldon book that spawned it). Would you bat an eye if you read that he had lied in this situation? I would find it out of character. Every example that comes to mind has Jesus getting out of "hard places" without having to resort to anything that might even be construed as sin.
In short, I would hope to have the courage to lie if I were placed in a similar predicament as those during WWII, but I still see it as a sin (if the "lesser" sin). I just can't help thinking that these dilemmas present a "third way" that I am just not seeing.
Having said all of this, you have the final word should you want it.
By
Anonymous, at 7:58 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home