|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 9, 2008 8:26:13 GMT -8
It seems like scientists have developed/ discovered a method of extracting unembryonic stem cells. That could mean, that they found a way to ship around the ethic dilemma of having to destroy human embryos in order to get stem cells. Stem cells could be crucial for finding ways to cure diseases like cancer. Read!* www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature07404.html*if this is too long, just read the bolded abstract at the top. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 10, 2008 17:23:58 GMT -8
Yep....
This is very cool. However, it's been in the works some time and my understanding (from things I've read) is that many pro-abortion politicians in America have been very reluctant to investigate these options... even in light of the fact that some studies have shown that adult stem cells are more stable and therefore more healthy/reliable than embryonic stell cells to work with.
BTW, Mo, do you personally think embryonic stem cell research presents an ethical dilemma?
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 11, 2008 12:09:00 GMT -8
If you want a litmus test for someone's ethical understanding, ask them about stem cell research and listen to the way they defend their position.
Utilitarians will generally go with the "ends justify the means" argument.
Christians ethicists will denounce the Utilitarian argument, and insist that SSR is probably immoral and therefore must be avoided.
Religious Righters will make a scientific argument, while presenting zero scientific facts.
I love Hauerwas' quote on the topic (you're shocked, I know): "If embryos were found to be a delicacy, would you eat them?" At first it sounds like an extremist question the Religious Right would pose, but then think about the answer it provokes...why is it that every single person rolls their eyes and says "of course not"? It kills the Utilitarian argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 17, 2008 7:27:41 GMT -8
BTW, Mo, do you personally think embryonic stem cell research presents an ethical dilemma? Of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 17, 2008 10:08:16 GMT -8
Let me restate that.
Do you, Mo, think it is unethical to use embryonic stem stells for research?
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 20, 2008 9:18:52 GMT -8
Let me restate that. Do you, Mo, think it is unethical to use embryonic stem stells for research? If I found embryonic stem cell research entirely unethical, I wouldn't be speaking of a dilemma, would I? The same goes the other way around. If I found it to be entirely ethical, I wouldn't be speaking of a dilemma either. It's a dilemma precisely because one has to weigh the unethical elements against the ethical elements of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 21, 2008 21:15:42 GMT -8
Well, though I think it's unethical, it's a dilemma in that insisting that it is unethical may mean giving up other good agendas.
What do you think are the "unethical elements" of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 21, 2008 22:14:24 GMT -8
questions?
Scientists are creating these human embryos, right? If so, can those embryos ever develop into a human life*? If not, then is it the creation of the stem cell that is at the crux of the dilemma, and not the destruction?
*The argument is that the embryo is a human life, right? I just didn't know how else to put it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 22, 2008 1:56:48 GMT -8
questions? Scientists are creating these human embryos, right? If so, can those embryos ever develop into a human life*? If not, then is it the creation of the stem cell that is at the crux of the dilemma, and not the destruction? *The argument is that the embryo is a human life, right? I just didn't know how else to put it. okay, I could be much mistaken now, after all I'm a total laymen to stem cell research. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. Here's the way I understood it: the first thing that happens in the process is the same as when a couple wants to have a baby but can't get it done naturally: Test-tube fertilization. But in contrast to stem cell research in the case of the desperate would-be parents the fertilized ovule is reimplanted into the woman and can become a human. If this is true so far, the crux isn't the artificial "creation of human life". At least not for me. I have no ethical reservations against artificial fertilization. But what happens in stem cell research, as far as I get it, is a different story. The fertilized ovule produces an embryo of which stem cells are being extracted. The useless embryo is being destroyed. The unethical aspect of it is the same as in abortion. But in contrast to abortion, the embryo isn't being destroyed for selfish motives*. On the contrary, scientists hope to save and ease billions of lives in the future through the their researches. They hope to find healing for cancer, parkinson, paralysis etc. They also hope to be able to artificially create vital parts. The dilemma is that one has to weigh the life of an embryo against the life of many (ill) humans. In my personal opinion, since an embryo isn't a human, it is worth less than the paralyzed boy in the wheelchair. I know you disagree. But I don't think it's easy. The embryo we are talking about would never become a human to begin with because the only purpose he has been artificially created is the stem cell research. Does that justify the means? I'm not sure. It's a true dilemma. I'm undecided. Another aspect I'm concerned about regarding stem cell research is the Gattaca szenario. I don't want that. *okay, I should be careful using the word selfish in that context because I don't really know the motives of aborting women. Some of them might be more desperate than selfish. And there are situations too in which the selfishness of the aborting woman is at least understandable if not even justifyed. Gee, that last sentence requires even further explanation doesn't it? However, I have the subjective impression that abortion is mostly the result of selfishness and I despise that attitude. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 22, 2008 20:23:36 GMT -8
I wrote quite a bit about why I think embryos are human elsewhere on the abortion thread so I won't repeat that all here except to ask why you're saying that the stem cell research embryo would never become a human to begin with? It won't mature to adulthood precisely because it's not being allowed to by willful human intervention. So this only increases the moral component imo. Lastly, on a quick tangent, in light of our other conversations on selfishness (which I don't think you responded to my last comment on), then you are agreed that there is a bad kind of selfishness as opposed to say, the self-interest inherent in even the most altruistic acts? |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 23, 2008 0:57:56 GMT -8
so I won't repeat that all here except to ask why you're saying that the stem cell research embryo would never become a human to begin with? What I wanted to say is that the only reason this embryo we are talking about came into existence is because of stem cell research. To be more precise: If stem cell research was forbidden, then the scientists wouldn't have fertilized the egg and the embryo wouldn't have even existed. Do you understand what I mean now? At no time there was a prospect for this embryo to be implanted into a mother. There was no plan, no chance at all for this embryo to ever be born. Lastly, on a quick tangent, in light of our other conversations on selfishness (which I don't think you responded to my last comment on), then you are agreed that there is a bad kind of selfishness as opposed to say, the self-interest inherent in even the most altruistic acts? Yes. My "selfishness-thread" was an attempt to figure out what you guys mean by selfishness. Whether you are aware that altruistic actions also contain an amount of selfishness, or self-interest as you called it. And whether you guys are aware that self-interests have their ligitimate place too. I won't reply to the older stuff until I'm done with my thesis. But I will. And you haven't replied to all the open questions, even if you think so.  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 23, 2008 9:46:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 25, 2008 20:43:38 GMT -8
Marcus wrote:
Nice quote, btw, Marcus. This reminds me that I should dust of the Hauerwas reader.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 26, 2008 1:28:22 GMT -8
Marcus wrote: Nice quote, btw, Marcus. This reminds me that I should dust of the Hauerwas reader. Now that you adress this Josh, I'd like to ask you for a little help explaining the meaning of the quote (or Marcus if you happen to read this). Cause I'm not sure I'm getting it. Marcus said the Utilitarian would weigh the benefit of stem cell research against the cost of it. Always according to the logic that something is okay if the ends justify the means. Right? So the situation, as it presents itself to a Utilitarian is as follows: You have to destroy (or kill) hundrets (or thousands? or millions?) of human embryos in order to find remedies against cancer, parkinson, etc. etc. This would be the cost. The benefit would be that the lifes of millions (or billions, or zillions) of born humans could be saved and/ or eased. Am I right so far? My question is: why would the fact, that a Utilitarian wouldn't eat an embryo (for instance because he, like you, consideres it a human being) kill his argument? His argument is a cost-benefit calculation. It is unaffected by his view of when life starts or when an embryo could be considered a human. Let's take the old and often quoted example of the railtrack dilemma to make this clearer. You are a railroad worker responsible for the turnouts. You realize that two trains are about to collide at full speed which would cause the death of hundrets of people. You could work the switches and avoid the collision but unfortunately there is a single railroad worker on the alternative track. There's no way to warn him, if you change the course of the train, he'll be dead. What do you do? Kill one man or watch how hundrets of people meet their fate? Okay, I'm sure you already know this dilemma. And it is unimportant what your individual choice would be. What I'm trying to get at is, that a Utilitarian would probably get to the conclusion that many lifes are worth more than an individual life. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't see the worth in the individual life. That doesn't mean the decision is easy. That doesn't mean he will joyfully work the switch. That doesn't mean he doesn't consider the single person to be a human. That doesn't mean he would eat this person*. So, I'm wondering: Have I misunderstood something along the way? Or is it that Marcus' argument simply doesn't work at all? It seems to me the argument is totally missing the point.  Or maybe I just didn't get it. What do you think? *to use the metaphor presented by Marcus. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Oct 31, 2008 0:56:39 GMT -8
No reply? Josh? Marcus?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 31, 2008 11:31:09 GMT -8
I decided to go back and read Haeurwas's article on abortion to freshen up. I'll be back.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 1, 2008 0:16:50 GMT -8
The Hauerwas quote isn't intended to point out the inherent flaws in Utilitarianism. It is intended to show that Utilitarians, deep down, know that human embryos are more than just living tissue. It really isn't a great example of Utilitarianism thought, and I shouldn't have said it was...actually, the example better demonstrates how someone manipulates a line of reasoning.
In the train dilemma, it is clear enough that both decisions will end human life, and the question is not really about valuing quality so much as quantity. When people make the case for embryonic research, however, they aren't so definitive. A common argument would sound like this: "Embryos may or may not be human, and we really aren't qualified to make that kind of a judgment. But if those embryos are able to serve a higher purpose, allowing millions to live..."
So they aren't bold enough to defend Utilitarianism outright. If they came out and said it unapologetically, I'd have more respect for them: "Yes, embryos are human. Yes, it is probably wrong to cross that line. But the good it will do will far outweigh the bad."
Of course, to justify the ends, they feel the need to justify the means as well (which is actually a compromise on Utilitarianism). So they add more ambiguity to the issue than actually exists. Hauerwas removes that ambiguity by forcing them to concede that embryos are obviously more than just clusters of cells.
Utilitarianism is a tough pill to swallow - it allows Hiroshima to be considered "just" because the ethic keeps a ledger that quantifies the number of dead people, and comes to the conclusion that, in the long run, more people were saved because of the bomb. But of course that position (when you consider the horrific volume of civilian life lost) needs to have the "means" justified to make the Utilitarian pill easier to swallow, so they usually defend their position by throwing in a little extra dash of justification: "Well, the Japanese people let their government do those terrible things, and they unfortunately paid the price." So in the end, all other things being equal, American life was more innocent and important than Japanese life. Just like adult humans are more important than embryonic humans. Just don't ask them to try a bite...that's just wrong.
It takes a very jaded, almost eerily unattached person to defend true Utilitarianism. Most people have to lie to themselves a bit to swallow the pill.
Moritz, I don't appreciate people pointing out the errors in my statements. In the future, please nod and smile.
|
|
Or maybe I just didn't get it.