| Muck and Mystery Loitering With Intent |
blog - at - crumbtrail.org |
Or, the rise of the ice-cream police.
Many people are vaguely disquieted by developments (real or imagined) that could alter minds and bodies in novel ways. Romantics and Greens tend to idealize the natural and demonize technology. Traditionalists and conservatives by temperament distrust radical change. Egalitarians worry about an arms race in enhancement techniques. And anyone is likely to have a "yuck" response when contemplating unprecedented manipulations of our biology. The President's Council has become a forum for the airing of this disquiet, and the concept of "dignity" a rubric for expounding on it. . .Via Cosma, again, who surprised himself by agreeing with Pinker.Whatever that is. The problem is that "dignity" is a squishy, subjective notion, hardly up to the heavyweight moral demands assigned to it. The bioethicist Ruth Macklin, who had been fed up with loose talk about dignity intended to squelch research and therapy, threw down the gauntlet in a 2003 editorial, "Dignity Is a Useless Concept." Macklin argued that bioethics has done just fine with the principle of personal autonomy--the idea that, because all humans have the same minimum capacity to suffer, prosper, reason, and choose, no human has the right to impinge on the life, body, or freedom of another. This is why informed consent serves as the bedrock of ethical research and practice, and it clearly rules out the kinds of abuses that led to the birth of bioethics in the first place, such as Mengele's sadistic pseudoexperiments in Nazi Germany and the withholding of treatment to indigent black patients in the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study. Once you recognize the principle of autonomy, Macklin argued, "dignity" adds nothing. . .
[D]ignity has three features that undermine any possibility of using it as a foundation for bioethics.
First, dignity is relative. One doesn't have to be a scientific or moral relativist to notice that ascriptions of dignity vary radically with the time, place, and beholder. . .
Second, dignity is fungible. . . We repeatedly vote with our feet (and other body parts) that dignity is a trivial value, well worth trading off for life, health, and safety.
Third, dignity can be harmful. . . Political and religious repressions are often rationalized as a defense of the dignity of a state, leader, or creed: Just think of the Salman Rushdie fatwa, the Danish cartoon riots, or the British schoolteacher in Sudan who faced flogging and a lynch mob because her class named a teddy bear Mohammed. Indeed, totalitarianism is often the imposition of a leader's conception of dignity on a population, such as the identical uniforms in Maoist China or the burqas of the Taliban. . .
A free society disempowers the state from enforcing a conception of dignity on its citizens. Democratic governments allow satirists to poke fun at their leaders, institutions, and social mores. And they abjure any mandate to define "some vision of 'the good life'" or the "dignity of using [freedom] well" (two quotes from the Council's volume). The price of freedom is tolerating behavior by others that may be undignified by our own lights. I would be happy if Britney Spears and "American Idol" would go away, but I put up with them in return for not having to worry about being arrested by the ice-cream police. This trade-off is very much in America's DNA and is one of its great contributions to civilization: my country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty. . .
In every age, prophets foresee dystopias that never materialize, while failing to anticipate the real revolutions.
The article is largely a critique of Human Dignity and Bioethics, a report from the President's Council on Bioethics, especially the role of Leon Kass. This is almost history since we will soon have a new President, and none of the candidates seem likely to continue this line of advocacy. So, it is the romantics, egalitarians and greens that are likely to carry the dignity torch, and burn heretics, in coming years as they have in the past.
I find the uptight left to be as foolish and repellent as the uptight right. I hope that medical science discovers a way to remove all those sticks from their butts, freeing them from wasted lives of unthoughtful priggishness, and freeing us from their predations.
Nice catch. This helps crystallize my discomfort with research involving human chimeras: at what point should the experimental subject be recognized as autonomous?
Posted by: Mike Anderson at May 14, 2008 12:22 PMNo easy answer.
My guess is that we will reason about it as we do about other primates now, as we did about races in the past. It's not that the problems are the same, just that the debate will be similar. Post-humans and intelligent machines too.
We are diverse, and becoming more so.
Posted by: back40 at May 14, 2008 02:33 PM