David S. Oderberg, Professor of Philosophy, University of Reading, and author of a marvelously clear paper on what’s wrong with embryonic stem cell research, has a problem with the whole bioethics industry. A big problem Oh, and did I say “industry”? Oderberg sees a whole lot of being careers being built here, but not much by way of good ethics in other the process or the output:
It is all too evident that very many, perhaps the majority, of bioethicists are, to put it frankly, less than competent…. In fact it is worse than this. For the best way of getting yourself heard as a bioethicist is not merely by saying something new about an old topic, or taking the lead in breaking open a new one, but by saying something radical or shocking. The more you excite the public imagination, the more debate there will be and the more people will want to hear you, simply so they can express their disagreement or at least for the shock value. And the more shocking you are, the better it seems to be for your career. Bioethicists appear to crawl over one another to outrage public sensibility with the creepiest ideas they can come up with.
As for those who don’t play that game:
[T]he current of major and fundamental dissent in bioethics is to be found among pro-life thinkers. These thinkers defend the inviolability of innocent human life; they support traditional families and human rights; and they call for curbs on rampant biotechnology. They attack untrammelled scientific developments, the commodification of humanity in all its forms, and anything that lessens the dignity and exceptionality of the human being. For they see the human being as a creature with a soul, a conscience, and a free will obedient to the dictates of an objective moral system that transcends personal preference and unrestrained autonomy.
Such thinkers have to be marginalized and demonized, and so they have been. This significant minority has been corralled into a corner, tarred with the brush of religious fundamentalism, and brought out into the light of day only for the occasional beating by the majority. They can have their little conferences and workshops, make their feeble protests, but then they are ritualistically stripped bare, flayed for the amusement of the multitude, and sent back into their corner. They are a kind of semi-licensed dissent.
Second, once this nuisance is got out of the way, the majority of bioethicists can safely make their pronouncements, tending invariably in the direction of more liberty for science and greater freedom for groups and individuals, whether it be in the name of “autonomy,” or “utility,” or “personal preference,” or what not, to do whatever biotech tells them is possible. The only unifying factor I can detect is scientism—secular humanism’s bastard religion that deifies science, proclaiming unconditional faith in the ability of science to lead us to a better future for all (who remain alive, that is). But wait a minute: What is the ethical basis of this faith? Is it autonomy? preference? costs and benefits? pluralism? Why should biotechnology be permitted to run rampant? Why, if the technology is there, must we be allowed to utilize it?
Hat tip to Edward Feser.
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
Comments are disabled for this post