The Legal Janitor

Sneaky sneaky.

So I find here an op-ed by someone who’s supposed to be “the dean of postgraduate studies and lecturer in historical and systematic theology at Trinity Theological College”. I don’t know about you, but the word ‘theology’ should set off alarm bells.

So he says:

Moral confusion sometimes comes about because of the jargon used in biotechnology. For example, much of the literature on cloning makes the distinction between ‘therapeutic’ and ‘reproductive’ cloning. ‘Reproductive’ cloning refers to the creation of a complete human being. ‘Therapeutic’ cloning, on the other hand, refers to the creation of human embryos for the purpose of research only.

The question is however, does he practice what he preaches? He states that amongst all the positive developments in biotechnology, there are some which are negative.

Among those less positive are embryonic stem cell research, fetal tissue research, cloning, genetic engineering, genetic discrimination and eugenics.

I guess moral clarity involves conflating embryonic stem cell research, fetal tissue research, cloning, genetic engineering with genetic discrimination and eugenics. Right smack in the second paragraph, you can already see how he sneakily tries to frame the debate. embryonic stem cell research, fetal tissue research, cloning and genetic engineering are all evil, EVIL I TELL YOU, because they are the same as genetic discrimination and eugenics.

For the record, embryonic stem cell research uses embryos which would be discarded from fertility treatments. Fetal tissue research most commonly uses tissue from the umbilical cord.

At one level, this could refer to improving overall health and vitality by effectively treating diseases. But at another level, ‘to make life better’ could mean designing life or manufacturing humans with improved abilities. This understanding of the goal of biotechnology must surely be called to question.

For someone who claims that jargon can be used to deceive and mislead, his use of words smack of the same obfuscation that he accuses those in the biotechnology of doing. ‘Designing life’ as a phrase has no meaning. No one can design life. You can manipulate chemicals and molecules in attempts to achieve a desired outcome, but ‘designing life’ hardly describes this process. ‘Manufacturing humans’ is even worse, as it clearly reflects his attempt to cast a dehumanizing sheen on genetic research. Why do humans with improved abilities have to be manufactured? Why can’t they be born just like any other human? For that matter, why are improved abilities bad at all?

What would happen if the moral demarcation line between human and non-human animals is breached? Would not the creation of novel beings that are part human and part non-human animal threaten the existing social order in untold ways? And is this not sufficient reason to forbid any crossing of species, especially if it involves human beings?

The worst argument he presents is the one against research that elides human and non-human genes. The argument: the creation of novel beings threaten the existing social order in untold ways. God forbid! That is the worst possible thing! We should have never given women the vote, nor let negros have the same social status as the rest of us humans, as it would threaten our existing social order in untold ways! He would be completely aghast to find out that our human ancestors have, on occassion, done the dirty with our ape cousins. OMGWTF!!! WE OURSELVES ARE CHIMERAS, PRODUCTS OF HUMAN-APE SEX!

…true ethical reasoning must make a distinction between what can be done and what ought to be done. Put differently, while science describes what is and what can be done, it is the province of moral and ethical judgment to decide what should be done.

The difficulty with this argument, is that there are a multitude of delusional luddite demagogues and religious fundamentalists with their own 1 million and one versions of moral and ethical judgments. Are we to subject the lives of everyone else to the edicts and fatwas of each one of these self-righteous moralists?

Utilitarian ethics is the inspiration behind many different expressions of eugenics. Two generations ago, author Aldous Huxley depicted a utopia achieved through genetic manipulation, hypnopaedia and psychoactive drugs in his disturbing novel, Brave New World. But this triumph exacted a heavy price: homogenisation, mediocrity, triviality, debased tastes and shallow relationships.

Unfortunately he also neglects to point out that it is arguable that deontological ethics can be held to be equally culpable of many different expressions of eugenics, and if not, at least useless. Hitler did not consider Jews to be human in Nazi Germany, and hence had no qualms in gassing them. Why extend to them the courtesy of the categorical imperative, if they were not persons in the first place?

Neither utilitarian ethics nor deontological ethics on their own are complete descriptions of how human beings should act. Both are complementary parts, as each are incomplete in their own ways. Furthermore, the fears as described by Roland Chia are exaggerated, IF there is no central coercive power to force people to undero genetic manipulation.

If someone wishes to be a ‘better’ or ‘improved’ human, why stop that person? If someone rejects genetic engineering and wishes to have no part in it, then that person should have every right to be free from that technology. As long as the technology remains firmly in the hands of private interests, and not within the hands of governments, which can easily justify coercive application of genetic technology for either utilitarian or deontological purposes, there would be no doomsday scenario to speak of.

At the bottom right corner of every issue of The Economist, there is this little blurb that goes:

First published in September 1843 to take part in “a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress.”

Now my argument is that THIS is the purpose of our ethics. Science and progress is no bogeyman. We will not go down the doomsday route. And we must engage in this contest against those who would hold us back by crying that we will.

AsiaOne - Science under moral microscope
Discovery Channel :: News :: Study: Chimps and Early Humans Interbred