One of the ironies in the stem cell debate is that there is a camp of scientists and ethicists who are trying to strike a kind of middle ground in which embryonic stem cells are allowed to be cloned or created for research, but only for what is called therapeutic purposes and not for reproductive purposes. (This story makes note of that.) In short, they believe cloning and ESC research should be allowed only to allow the product to be destroyed and the stem cells or organs harvested. It would be much worse, apparently, if infertile couples cloned an embryo to raise it and care for it as a human being.
The poet and ethicist J. Bottum has noted that this runs contrary to our moral intuitions and leads to a scientific culture reminiscent of our worst dystopias. At least, he argues, if we allow cloning and ESC research, let us do so for reasons much more humane than destruction and research. Doubtless the defenders of this odd position point out that the destruction and research is for potential future benefit. But I cannot come up with another situation in which we as a culture allow the wholesale slaughter and destruction of a certain class of humans for the potential future benefit of a few.
We must resist the tendency our scientific culture has to euphemize its way out of moral conundrums. If we beat down our moral intuitions for too long, they may be very hard to regain indeed.
3 comments:
Mike-
I think you are right that we are on a dangerous path when it comes to the language we use to categorize our moral choices. Many people don't like the "slippery slope" kind of argument, but I don't know how we can avoid it's considerations-we need to see that these deleterious consequences are in the realm of reality.
Phil,
I agree wholeheartedly with your post. Language is used to sanitize moral atrocities. One of the best ways to restore meaning to words is to show pictures -- we are a visual society after all. Abortion has meaning once we see aborted children -- it no longer is about "choice", it is about murder.
In the case of extracting cells from embryos, however, the picture approach is not as fruitful because the embryos don't look like us.
In your opinion, how can we make our moral argument in a way that is compelling -- even to a visually oriented society like ours?
Mr Dawn Treader
www.mrdawntreader.com
Jeff-That is a very good question, and it has been rolling around in my head since you posted it. I just completed a great book by J. Budziszewski called The Revenge of Conscience, and I hope to craft a bit of a response as a result of some of the things in his book.
Post a Comment