A blogger who goes by “Conceptualizer” thought that my brief commentary on the human/cow experimental hybrid embryo was “disingenuous.” Thus, I would like to elaborate a bit based on the reasonable, yet misguided objections he raised in the comments section of that post.
“Conceptualizer,” thanks for your input. I would disagree with you though about what you call the “wide-ranging interpretation” of morality. For example, many radical Islamists believe it is right and even honorable to kill infidels, even innocent women and children. By your reasoning, how can you argue that such actions are wrong if they’re simply exercising a “wide-ranging interpretation” of morality. Of course YOU could (and hopefully would) call that action immoral, but isn’t it (as you stated) “dangerous to assume one has the only valid version?”
That’s silly. In fact, it is much more dangerous to state that there is no “valid version” of morality at all. If any action is moral based on any reasoning of any person, then morality ceases to exist altogether. It would be ethical anarchy. Of course there are absolutes! And creating human life for the purpose of experimentation and then destruction is absolutely immoral, no matter the outcome.
You mentioned that you think “a few cells are clearly worth sacrificing to prevent the early death and pain of many people,” and on this you and I find common ground. In fact, I would take it a step further and say that MANY cells are worth sacrificing… Umbilical cord blood cells, adult stem cells, and other types of cells whose curative properties show as much, or even more promise than those which are derived when a life is destroyed to extract them. Certainly cells are worth “sacrificing.” But a life is not.
“Conceptualizer,” when has it ever been medically ethical to kill one human for the sake of treating another?
9 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
Hello again JLG
Thanks for your reply.
I am not a moral absolutist as you seem to be, so we will disagree on morality in some areas, but we probably still have a lot of accord. Regardless, we do have a subtle but significant difference of opinion on the definition of human life and I think that is where we need to look more closely. While I am content to agree that to create human life for experimentation and destruction is immoral to most people, myself included, I doubt they can do it. Let me elucidate:
Firstly, the cells in question are hybrids, they were never the natural creations of people, does that not immediately disqualify them as human life? Certainly some people will be reluctant to assign humanity to a few cells that could never have occurred naturally.
Secondly, human cells are not human life, we all lose many of them every day. Being human is more than just being a collection of human cells. To suggest otherwise diminishes what it is to be human.
Thirdly, to become human life, cells need to have the potential to grow into a human. I am not a scientist, but I read that it is impossible for these cells to develop into any semblance of human life.
Fourthly, even if these things can be nurtured, what percentage of the cell must be human for it to be considered human? If it contained only one human protein you would probably say it was not human, but if it contained only one animal protein is it still human?
Fifthly, when does a collection of human or acceptably human cells become a human life? If one believes that a human is something more than a mass of cells, then when is that extra part added? I know it is common to suggest that a ‘soul’ is there from the very beginning, but is that true of things created in a lab? Why assume it is? That would imply the addition of a soul is a simple consequence of biology. Surely if a soul is so important, that would not be the case and direct intervention from god would be needed to add a soul. If what the scientists were doing is wrong then god would not do such a thing. Even if god has arranged that a soul is implanted automatically god would intervene in each event and decide if it is appropriate. I feel sure that the use of souls is not so lightly treated by god.
I am a science student, and I blog on these sort of topics, so I can I guess answer a few of conceptualizer’s queries.
Firstly, the cells are cybrids. Yes, they wouldn’t occur naturally, but they are still 99.9% human and most likely, if they developed for a few more months, would result in an entirely human baby – or at worst, a human baby with a few genetic disorders. So I’m going to say they are no different to ‘normal’ human embryonic cells.
Secondly, I completely agree with conceptualizer in that not every cell is sacred. Not living thing with human DNA is a human being.
Thirdly, I think it is true that these cells cannot grow into a human being yet, but that is likely to be overcome (technically). Also, it is illegal to implant these into a uterus (cow or human), and without implantation the cells can’t develop into a human.
Fourthly, it is my opinion here that humanity cannot be defined in terms of the DNA. I’m even willing to accept a robot, without any DNA, to be part of ‘humanity’ if it acted just like a human.
Fifth, it is my opinion that humanity is a result of consciousness, which in turn is a result of brain action. Until a bunch of cells (or electric circuits, for that matter) can lead to self-awareness and the like, I don’t see anything that makes that bunch of cells any more valuable than any other bunch of cells (like a bunch of adult human stem cells).
“Conceptualizer,” thanks again for your comments and yes we do indeed disagree on several things. This is exactly what I meant in my first post about scientists “play[ing] around with human life, experimenting with it like a lab rat that can be easily discarded.” “Joshua” made some good points and I’d encourage you to respond if you get a chance. Have a good one.
Joshua, It occurs to me from what you say, that to be human is a matter of similarity with other things designated as human. In the case of an embryo then it is not human, but has the potential to become human. Obviously then there is a continuum between potential human and human. What aspect of its development would cause you to change from one classification for the cells to the other?
In my opinion, an embryo is human, though it would not yet be a human being. Likewise, a brain cell or kidney is human (as in, a “human brain cell” or “human kidney”), but not a human being.
I’m still unsure which human characteristic is best used to determine when a human organism becomes a human being (or person). I think the key characteristic of being a human being is to be able to think like a human. Our brain (more accurately, our mind), after all, is what truly sets us apart from other animals. Therefore, the earliest I could consider personhood arising is around 18 weeks (when the brain starts to operate) and the latest at around 18 months after birth (when self-awareness arises) – although even that latter definition requires me to respect adult apes as persons.
Joshua. Thanks for your answer.
I suggest that the zenith of personhood is adulthood and reaching it is the primary goal for human life. Therefore, the important thing about an embryo is that it could become a person and ideally an adult. If experimental embryos could never develop into people and particularly adults, then they would be of limited interest to most people. The binary use of language is an important barrier when discussing what is a person, creating an artificial divide between person and non-person. Rather, there is a quality of personhood that is continuous and extends from at least birth through adulthood. Personhood is characterised by at least the combination of: remembered experience, emotions, empathy, compassion, language, knowledge and a range of cognitive skills. How developed these are determines how adult one is. So to be a person is not a simple state that can be latched into, it is a broad spectrum with adulthood as a narrower range at its zenith.
The other and in some ways bigger issue here, is that some religious groups believe there is one fundamentally important and valuable aspect of a person, often referred to as ‘the soul’, which is present even in an embryo. The concept of soul is useful to provide differential status and hence treatment, between for example people and animals. Disproving the existence of a soul is probably an intractable problem and a battle that need not be fought. Just in case it was not obvious; the fifth point in my earlier post here attempted to circumvent this issue by encouraging the religious to reinterpret their own texts. A new interpretation could extricate them from their moral dilemma. My suggestion involved selective divine intervention to prevent misuse of souls, but one could also envisage a special case where addition of a soul is conditional upon a priori knowledge of the embryo’s destiny. The are probably some other schemes that could be employed, but the latter has the advantage that it could be applied in tragic cases such as prenatal death. Hopefully they will reinterpret, then we can all move on peacefully and the scientists can continue to save lives.
What is life? Does cancer cell have a life. Bacters, like what humans call anthrax, should that be not destroyed?
“Bystander,” if you really can’t tell the difference between a human life and anthrax, then you’re not a person who can be reasoned with.
I’m sure that JLG can tell the difference between a human and a bacterium, but was specifically asking whether that difference was morally relevant – a cell (bacteria or human) is alive, after all.