Utilitarian Bioethics: Anything Goes on One End, Instrumentalization of the Weak on the Other
John Harris is an influential UK bioethicist whose hard core utilitarianism makes his ideas dangerous and potentially as tyrannical as those of Peter Singer--perhaps more. I first became aware of Harris when researching Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, when I read an article he wrote in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal called "The Concept of the Person and the Value of Life," in which he wrote: Many, if not most of the problems of health care ethics presuppose that we have a view about what sorts of beings have something we might think of as ultimate moral value. Or, if this sounds to apocalyptic then we certainly need to identify the sorts of individuals who have "the highest" moral value or importance...
Harris's point was that human nonpersons can be killed and we can get a good night's sleep. But imagine if he had said we need to identify the race that has the highest moral value and that another race could be killed. He would be rightly labeled a bigot. This is the same thing, just different victims.
As we all know by now, such invidious discrimination against the weak and vulnerable is accepted widely in the Establishment--and even in the media despite their bleating about liberalism and human equality. These attitudes--which are being inculcated into our doctors of tomorrow, our nurses of tomorrow, our government leaders of tomorrow in the elite universities--mark an unapologetic return of eugenics. Indeed, Harris has explicitly supported eugenics, for example, in a BBC report about the pressure on families to eugenically abort:"
"Eugenics is the attempt to create fine healthy children and that's everyone's ambition." He believes couples who choose to have babies even when there are problems are "misguided" and the more we can screen out disability, pain and suffering the better. "We're not trying to do this through killing people or eliminating individuals, we're trying to do this by making choices about which people will exist in the future."Except those "choices" involve killing people whilst non persons. Indeed, eugenic infanticide or "post birth abortion" as it has been called, is now a regular practice in the Netherlands.
Today, the Times of London has a Harris piece in support of transhumanism (although he doesn't use the term), toward which these eugenic agendas point. He writes:
Darwinian evolution has taken millions of years to create human beings; the next phase of evolution, a phase I call "enhancement evolution", [me: really, intelligent design]could occur before the end of the century. The result may be the emergence of a new species that will initially live alongside us and eventually may entirely replace humankind...To get there, of course, will require an "anything goes" biotechnological research agenda, including cloning, genetic engineering, and as utilitarian bioethicists have written elsewhere (and I have covered here at SHS), treating human non persons as crops and prize herds in organ procurement and experimentation. It will also include the investment of tremendous sums--this at a time when children with malaria die in Africa and we are banned from using DDT to kill the disease-carrying mosquitoes.
Some of these possibilities are so radical that the creatures benefiting from them would no longer be "human", in the way we think of it. The end of humanity then is not in itself a concern [me:!!!]; making sure that those who replace us are better than we are is a huge and timely concern.
Here we find the other end of the new eugenics, the drive to create the superman that is fueled by eliminating and exploiting the weakest and most vulnerable among us. And, due to the expense, it would be reserved for those with money to burn. Oh, Harris throws a bromide that society should help the deserving poor enhance, but make no mistake about it, in a world in which utilitarian ethics dominate, it would be open season on those deemed to be a drag on society due to their "poor" quality of life. And we can kiss universal human rights goodbye.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 7:16 AM
26 Comments
26 Comments:
Wesley, it is inaccurate to imply that Transhumanists advocate anything-goes biotech research, and it is also inaccurate to imply that Transhumanists are utilitarians. While some Transhumanists certainly can be accurately described in those ways, such descriptions are no more generally accurate than are desciptions of theists as superstitious.
The drive to create the superman, to use your expression, simply does not necessitate exploitation of the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Indeed, such is definitionally in contradiction to the superman, so far as I and a significant number of other Transhumanists are concerned.
I think you are fooling yourself Lincoln. But I always value your input.
In what way do you think I'm fooling myself?
I think that transhumanism is inherently eugenic and that is inescapable. Eugenics is very utilitarian, whether explicitly or implicitly. I have read most of the major transhumanists--Hughes, Bostrom, Silver, etc.--and find that all promote an end to human exceptionalism and equal moral worth for all human beings. Personhood theory is huge in transhumanism, and you knwo what I think of that. Radical libertarianism is huge. So is utopianism, and that always ends badly.
You may be an exception, it seems to me Lincoln. But that is how I see the movement overall.
Is it eugenic to believe we should be working to transform ourselves into sublime beings? If so, Transhumanism is eugenic along with many of the religions of the world. However, I use "eugenics" to describe forced transformation, and Transhumanism (as outlined in the Transhumanist Declaration) clearly disavows such force.
I agree with personhood theory, but I do not agree with a diminishing circle of what counts as a person. That circle should be stretched ever wider, so far as I am concerned (and I also see that as a central message of Christianity). I also agree that humans are, relative to all other known forms of life, exceptional; however, I see this as a matter of magnitude rather than a matter of absolute distinction in kind.
I consider myself a libertarian, although at least as many Transhumanists consider themselves liberals of some sort or another. The libertarianism that resonates with me is the one that acknowledges the need of government, but considers it essential that we always work to keep government to only the essential minimum to mitigate the risk of tyrannizing the governed.
Utopianism is huge among all ideologies, secular and religious. For example, to use again that with which I'm well acquainted, we see the same thing in the Mormon religion: persons that overlook the aspects of their religion that teach there will never be a final end to evil, and persons that acknowledge those. Some of us simply haven't sufficiently recognized the recurrent complexities of life. That, however, is more of an observation regarding the learning curve of humans than it is regarding Transhumanism. There may always be persons of every ideology that think it the final solution to every problem.
Wesley, in response to your thought that I may be an exception, all I can say is that I'm not alone.
Lincoln, I think there are more like you than Wesley does, but regardless, would you truly claim your views are representative of mainstream Transhumanism? I have no doubt that they are of your circle of Mormon Transhumanists, but beyond that, I too am skeptical.
The drive to create the superman, to use your expression, simply does not necessitate exploitation of the weakest and most vulnerable among us.
But is a typical TH's definition of "weakest and most vulnerable among us" the same as Wesley's? (Who merits inclusion in "us", for example?) And how much of your statement here relies implicitly on the occurrence of the Singularity (ie. expecting imminent arrival of unlimited scientific powers and freedom from scarcity)?
I think I can clarify the opinion of Harris on the end of the human species by quoting from his recent book, Enhancing Evolution:
"If our ape ancestor had thought about it, she might have taken the view espoused by many of our contemporary gurus, Leon Kass, Michael Sandel, George Annas, Francis Fukuyama, and many others, that there is something special about themselves and that their particular sort of being is not only worth preserving in perpetuity, but that there is a duty to not only ensure that preservation, but to make sure that neither natural selection nor deliberate choice permit the development of any better sort of being." (p16)
"It if difficult, for me at least, to see any powerful principled reasons to remain human if we can create creatures, or evolve into creatures, fundamentally "better" than ourselves. It is salutary to remember that we humans are products of an evolutionary process that has fundamentally changed "our" nature."(p40)
"Traits in short are not acceptable (in the normative rather than of course the simply descriptive sense of "acceptable) simply because they are normal, they are acceptable because they are worth having. If they are not worth having, or if they are worth having, their normality seems bereft of interest or force."(p53)
He also uses the example of immunity to HIV, which some labs are working on via genetic engineering. He states that because most people accept this sort of idea (as it the GM equivalent of vaccination), and because immunity to HIV is not a normal human thing to have, then people must not be against genetic interferences that take us beyond 'species-typical functioning'.
I hope that allows you to see more clearly the reasoning behind his statements. I am a little upset that Harris didn't provide such statements in his piece in the The Times.
Bernhardt, you ask whether I would claim that my views are representative of mainstream Transhumanism. I do think there are many mainstream Transhumanists that share in a will toward compassion, extending the circle of esteem, and softening radical stances. I do also think it is the majority, but have no numbers to support these claims.
None of my statements rely on imminent unlimited power or freedom from scarcity. I do see the trends of accelerating change, and recognize our weakness in predicting the future beyond the event horizon we call the technological singularity, but I do not suppose the other side to be without challenges. To the contrary, I suppose challenges to be inherent in life of any magnitude -- but that doesn't mean I want to give up the challenges of being human for those of being an ant, or not pursue those of a new future in exchange for remaining as I am.
Lincoln, the problem is that, despite your assurances, I keep finding evidence that many THs *do* demand "anything goes" biotech -- and without even looking for it! I happened to check out Joshua's blog after seeing his comment here, and found the following on his About page:
# Approves the use of germline genetic engineering and pre-implantation selection for enhancement of offspring.
# Approves the use of embryonic stem cells and therapeutic cloning for both therapy and, if possible, enhancement.
# Approves the use of reproductive cloning, even without the consent of the person being cloned.
# Approves the creation of human-human and animal-human hybrid embryos through transgenic manipulation or embryo fusion, for research and, if proven safe, reproductive purposes.
There is much more along these lines on the rest of his blog as well.
Now, regardless of what you think of those positions personally, you must admit that this bolsters Wesley's argument rather than yours. Yes, I know Joshua is only one person, but like Wesley I too see a repeating pattern here, and see it often enough to conclude that Joshua's views rather than yours are the mainstream in Transhumanism.
Have you asked Joshua if he demands "anything goes" biotech? I suspect he'll respond, "no", even if you don't happen to agree with all of his views. By portraying Transhumanists as advocating "anything goes" biotech, you are only perpetuating a straw man stereotype and cascading misunderstanding rather than real questions that drive toward the heart of our differences. Certainly Transhumanists are more liberal in their views of what is ethical use of technology, but it is inaccurate to characterize them as Wesley sometimes does.
On the flip side, I know that Wesley is sometimes frustrated when Transhumanists characterize him as being anti-science. I agree that such a characterization is inaccurate and reflects lazy consideration on the part of the person offering it.
Lincoln: Aw shucks.
Joshua, one critical question is what exactly Harris would consider a "better sort of being". I suspect he and many other THs primarily conceive of "better" as simply "more powerful" -- a purely material, rather than philosophical/spiritual/humanistic, quality. The Anti-TH critique usually hinges on this, rather than some sort of violation of "normality". A common Anti-TH position is that what is best about humanity is the latter qualities, and that an ideology such as TH that 1) repudiates this and 2) supports actions that undermine them warps and degrades us, and should thus be opposed.
I'm not personally convinced that TH *must* entail the "material" approach (either in goals or research) but I find little evidence against the likelihood that it overwhelmingly will.
Lincoln writes:
Have you asked Joshua if he demands "anything goes" biotech?
No, and you are right that he probably would deny it (in the sense that he would not personally consider it that) but would that actually address Wesley's point? The fact remains that Harris, Joshua, and other THs call for the violation of many bioethical constraints that Wesley considers essential and nonnegotiable. Whether or not you consider that truly "anything goes" is a matter of semantics that is irrelevant for his core argument.
BV: Very important point. I once cared for a develomentally disabled man, who would not fit into the TH view of "better." But he was the most wonderful human being I have ever known. If we were all like him, there would be no war in the world.
You read my blog, so surely you saw that I approve restrictions based on safety, efficacy or health risks. If it's not going to work, and/or has a real chance of going horribly wrong (that is, has a good chance of causing harm to people), then I'm certainly in favour of restrictions.
I am certainly not, however, in favour of any restrictions based on some 'sacred limit' around a 'human nature'. I have never been convinced that there is any secular reasoning behind a special and essential 'factor X' in humans that would not be present in a transhuman or posthuman.
Bernhardt, material and philosophical/spiritual/humanistic qualities, although pitted against each other in some ideologies, are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary, they reinforce each other. The most influential Transhumanists explicitly recognize this. Before that, Mormon tradition recognized this. Before that, numerous ancient non-escapist ideologies recognized this.
You suggest that it is irrelevant whether Transhumanists actually advocate an "anything goes" mentality because Wesley's point is that they advocate ideas he strongly opposes. I strongly disagree. By mischaracterizing his ideological antagonists through such exagerations, Wesley (or anyone else) misses the target and reduces the efficacy of interaction. Productive debate results primarily from accurate criticism -- not "anything goes" hyperbole. For all the same reasons it is counter-productive to charge Wesley with anti-scientific mentality, it is counter-productive to charge Transhumanists with anything-goes mentality. The truth is more subtle, interesting and important than either of the lazy characterizations.
Wesley, it is inaccurate to claim that a person that exhibits advanced compassion (or any other desireable characteristic) would not fit into the Transhumanist view of "better". There are a few poorly educated or relatively misanthropic Transhumanists that may suggest otherwise (as there are among adherents of all ideologies), but certainly the majority recognize many forms of "better" that would resonate with that you observed in your friend.
Lincoln: Very interesting exchange you are having. But "anything goes" is accurate. Most THs oppose any ethical restrictions on the manipulation of humanity. They accept treating human life as a maleable and exploitable resource. The idea of "safety" and "efficacy" restrictions are by definition meaningless in this context, given that in order to learn to make cloning, as just one example, safe--would require the manufacture of cloned embryos and their destruction. As I wrote in Consumer's Guide to a BNW, eventually, this would go to implanting cloned embryos in artificial wombs and their dissection to study their development. And considering the radical libertarianism of the movement, if someone wants to try a dangerous enhancement, who are you to say they can't?
Would transhumanists advocate kidnapping homeless people and experimenting on them? No. But the term anything goes is apt as an apt and accurate and fair polemic description of the agenda.
Wesley, I strongly disagree, and ample evidence suggests that you are engaging in an ad hominem against Transhumanists generally. Transhumanists simply do NOT oppose all ethical restrictions. The sub-header of the World Transhumanist Association web site explicitly calls for the "ethical" use of technology. Your claim necessitates that Transhumanists are generally liars, and is no more fair than it is to claim you are anti-science. I suspect you know this, and I'm confused as to why you find it important to persist in the ad hominem.
Lincoln: I am not calling anyone a liar. Because someone claims to believe in "ethical" research doesn't make it so. Peter Singer says he's ethical. To say his views would destroy human rights is hardly ad hominem. Nor is it ad hominem to say that what THs consider "ethical"--in the context of this discussion--is essentially anything goes. That seems pretty clear to me. What meaningful restrictions are advocated?
Joshua writes:
You read my blog, so surely you saw that I approve restrictions based on safety, efficacy or health risks.
But safety limits are not the ethical concerns we are discussing here.
I am certainly not, however, in favour of any restrictions based on some 'sacred limit' around a 'human nature'. I have never been convinced that there is any secular reasoning behind a special and essential 'factor X' in humans that would not be present in a transhuman or posthuman.
The presence or absence of such a thing in a transhuman is not the primary issue here. I outlined a common Anti-TH argument to illustrate that how one defines "better" leads to profoundly different stances. Harris justifies TH by claiming it will make us "better" so we shouldn't hesitate, but at least in the excerpts we are discussing leaves "better" undefined. I suspect his conception of "better" (and apparently yours) is simply "more powerful". A different conception of "better" does not need to be non-secular to clash with this.
But we are getting off-track with this. Wesley's point was far more about ethical limits than what TH may do to those who undertake it. Such ethical limits can be argued without invoking a "Factor X". For example, do you consider killing an innocent fellow person wrong despite rejecting such a concept? If so, you've proven my point.
Shrugging ethical concerns off as "just religion" is rhetorically convenient but intellectually lazy.
Wesley, each Transhumanist I know, even the most radical, advocates some meaningful restriction or another. Asking that question is more productive than claiming that Transhumanists advocate "anything goes" technology. To reason and explain why you believe a particular ethical stance has negative consequences is not ad hominem; however, it is indeed ad hominem (and exageration) when you charge Transhumanists as having an "anything goes" mentality. You may know what you actually mean by that (and I may disagree with your actual assessment), but there are plentty of persons who will take your words at their face value and we both know the face value is inaccurate -- so change the face value. I say the same to any Transhumanist who calls you anti-scientific, which merely obscures rather than illuminates the debate.
Bernhardt, I agree that anti-religious sentiment generally corresponds with intellectual laziness.
Lincoln writes:
...material and philosophical/spiritual/humanistic qualities, although pitted against each other in some ideologies, are not mutually exclusive.
My apologies for poor word choice -- I did not intend to invoke this contrast. I meant "material" in the sense of tangible power rather than intangible qualities. These can be considered separately without being at odds.
You suggest that it is irrelevant whether Transhumanists actually advocate an "anything goes" mentality because Wesley's point is that they advocate ideas he strongly opposes.
No, that's incorrect. The important point was not simply his opposition but rather the extended degree of ethical violation. THs do not have to allow *literally* everything for Wesley to be justified in using the phrase rhetorically if the lack of restraints is indeed dramatic.
Bernhardt, are Wesley's restraints dramatic enough to justify the "anti-science" rhetoric?
Ok, my definition of 'better' is just whatever a person thinks would be better. This is not what Harris uses in his definition. He would probably define better in terms of making people happier, healthier and long-lived (some sort of utilitarian view), whereas I just think that better is in the eye of the beholder (a libertarian view).
It is a fair point, however, that I do consider my views ethical but many would disagree. For example, I have absolutely no issue with Wesley's example of vivisection of live human cloned embryos. I think that is a perfectly acceptable, or perhaps even morally obligatory, way of gaining knowledge to help people.
And Wesley is right in that if a person wanted to try a risky enhancement, that had a high chance of not working or hurting them (and they knew of these risks), I wouldn't feel right to stop them. That is how I felt when that British (Lichy, was it?) couple wanted to select deaf embryo.
However, if a particular enhancement was very likely to hurt, kill or infringe on the rights of another person (such as an enhancement that would spread a lethal virus), then I would certainly argue for restrictions.
Hi guys, great discussion that I must have missed when it happened.
I had hoped it was about to mention an actual "ethical restriction" that Transhumanists support, which would prove that they weren't "anything goes". Funny that the thread sort of died out right after that request, aint it, Wesley?
Well, anyhow, I can think of one ethical restriction that ALL Transhumanists are againt: a blanket ban on all genetic engineering by limiting conception to a man and a woman's actual genes. In fact, that's the best way to define a Transhumanist, as someone who thinks we should (with "ethical restrictions", of course) allow genetic engineering of people. That's the common denominator, the sine qua non; if you don't believe we should allow genetic engineering you can't be a Transhumanist. If you oppose a ban on modified gametes you are a Transhumanist, if you support a ban on GE'd people, you are not.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home