If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here.

February 9, 2010

by Wesley J. Smith

side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar If you want to accurately predict what could soon go wrong in society, just read the professional journals.  Case in point: A bioethicist named Alasdair Cochrane, a deep thinker at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights in the UK, argued recently in Bioethics that we should discard our (already tenuous) embrace of intrinsic human dignity as the foundational basis for establishing medical ethics and enacting health care public policies.

Eschewing human exceptionalism and the sanctity of human life would have huge ramifications, and in urging what he calls an "undignified bioethics," Cochrane does not shy away from describing the stakes:

…the possession of dignity by humans signifies that they [all people] have an inherent moral worth.  In other words, because human beings possess dignity we cannot do what we like to them, but instead have direct moral obligations towards them. Indeed, this understanding of dignity is also usually considered to serve as the grounding for human rights. As Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.'

Cochrane hits the nail: Simply stated, if all humans do not have intrinsic equal moral value, the philosophical bases of the U.S. Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal…") and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, are rendered impotent, and universal human rights becomes impossible to sustain. Beyond that, if we deny intrinsic human dignity, we open the door to using human beings as objects and mere natural resources, as Cochrane details:

[I]f all individual human beings possess dignity, then they should not be viewed simply as resources that we can treat however we please. To take an example then, it may be that we could achieve rapid and significant progress in medical science if we were to conduct wide-ranging medical experiments on groups of human beings. However, because human beings have dignity, so it is argued, this means that they possess a particular quality that grounds certain moral obligations and rights.

Alas, that crucial protection matters not to Cochrane. In place of intrinsic human dignity, he urges that we judge each individual's moral worth based on their individual characteristics and capacities. He writes:

If all human beings possess dignity–this extraordinary moral worth–we need some explanation of what it is about the species Homo sapiens that makes them so deserving. When we start looking at particular characteristics that might ground dignity – language-use, moral action, sociality, sentience, self-consciousness, and so on – we soon see that none of these qualities are in fact possessed by each and every human. We are therefore left wondering why all human beings actually do possess dignity.

But this is all wrong.  Human capacities of the kind (and others) mentioned by Cochrane are unique to the human species, that is, they are uniquely part of our natures: That some have not developed, or have lost, them, is quite irrelevant to their full membership in the moral community, otherwise our value is merely transitory, meaning nobody would ultimately be safe. More specifically, judging moral worth individual by individual would resurrect the pernicious thinking behind eugenics and social Darwinism, full force. Indeed, accepting the concept of human undignity is the master key that opens the door to tyranny.

Interestingly Cochrane admits that Christian religion and its concept of the soul could justify human exceptionalism. But like most among the intelligentsia, he finds no place for faith in the discussion because Christian views are "controversial."  And it is true: When pagan Rome permitted unwanted babies to be exposed on hills, it was Christians who controversially gathered them up and lovingly raised them as their own. Today, Christians—just as controversially—continue to follow their Lord's admonition to love one's neighbor as one's self, for example, by standing in the breach to protect the unborn from abortion and being used in scientific experiments, and the aged, and cognitively disabled from euthanasia and denial of food and fluids. 

But unconditional love impedes the future that the new bioethics project envisions. Human bodies are the new frontier, our very parts a potential gold field in the development of miracle medical products. If we are going to use some human beings as mere natural resources—or in another context, "save the planet" from global warming and overpopulation--there is no place for intrinsic human dignity.  Cochrane writes:

Obviously, given controversies over abortion, stem cell research, genetic interventions, animal experimentation, euthanasia and so on, bioethics does need to engage in debates over which entities possess moral worth and why. But these are best conducted by using the notion of 'moral status' and arguing over the characteristics that warrant possession of it. Simply stipulating that all and only human beings possess this inherent moral worth because they have dignity is arbitrary and unhelpful.

These are matters about which we can no longer debate, an activity requiring a common frame of reference. More to the point, human dignity is not a matter about which compromise can be achieved: Either it exists or it doesn't.

All that can be done, then, is to hold up these diametrically conflicting world views to intense scrutiny—human exceptionalism versus human undignity—and inform the public of the benefits, burdens, and consequences that flow directly from each.

We can start with this truth: Unless we all matter no matter what, none of us will ultimately matter.



Responses to: Science and Faith Activists

Regarding Julia Thompson's recent article about science and faith, it is great to see more information like this being discussed in the public forum. One addition would be the great work--in my opinion--being published by the organization in California headed by Hugh Ross, called "Reasons to Believe." I encourage anyone interested in the harmony of science and faith to check them out, too. Their web site is www.reasons.org. - Tom Ervasti

Thank you, friends, for the posting on February 4 regarding the work of BioLogos, Ard Louis, etc. This was all great stuff, and my comment is only to regret the poor quality of the recordings. To click on and slog through an hour or so of internet video requires a vital subject and at least passable video and audio. The subject matter was truly engrossing, but I just could not endure an hour of the production. I had to listen VERY closely to hear what was said, and much was still unintelligible--especially when the speaker pushed the microphone aside and wandered a bit around the lectern. That also drove the cameraman to distraction, who was not equipped with a suitable camera or tripod to smoothly follow the action. And I'm sure Dr. Louis had interesting slides for his talk, though none of them was visible on the screen. It's a shame that such valuable information was squelched by such poor production. I AM grateful that someone sought to preserve Dr. Louis' talk on video, but the video just didn't work. Any way, thank you for your good intentions. Blessings on you! - Ron Heffield

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
top
left links right
Human dignity under fire again in leading bioethics journal
The History of Valentine's Day
Obama plan to disband Bioethics Council draws criticism
Lament for a Bioethics Council
Obama Abruptly Sacks Bio-ethics Panel Critical of Embryonic Stem-Cell Research
 
bottom
about tothesource
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
subscribe email a friend
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
wesley smith   Wesley J. Smith
Award winning author Wesley J. Smith, the associate director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, is a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His book Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder (1997), a broad-based criticism of the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement was published in 1997. His book Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, a warning about the dangers of the modern bioethics movement, was named One of the Ten Outstanding Books of the Year and Best Health Book of the Year for 2001 (Independent Publisher Book Awards). He is currently writing a book about the animal rights movement.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org