Module 3 and 4: Science, Ethics and Religion:
- Somerville, Margaret, ‘Searching for Ethics in a Secular Society’, Ethics of Science and Technology: Eplorations of the Frontiers of Science and Ethics (ed), UNESCO, Paris 2006, pp. 17-39
- Bok, Siessela, ‘Secrecy and Openness in science: Ethical Considerations’, Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 7, No. 38, (Winter, 1982), pp. 32-41
- Cairns, John Jr., ‘Sustainability Ethics Matter’ Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics’, April 7, 2004, pp 3-6.
- Rivers, Theodore John, ‘Technology and Religion: A Metaphysical Challenge’, Technology in Society, 28 (2006), pp 517-531
- Prainsack, Brabara, ‘Negotiating Life: The Regulation of Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Israel’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 36 no.2, April 2006, pp.173-205
- Sessions, George, ‘The Deep Ecology Movement: A Review’, Environmental Review, Vol.11 No.2, Summer, 1987, pp.105-125
I presented Margaret Somerville's paper in class. The discussion that we had this week illustrated the need to adopt a different approach to this module.But considering the fact that we haven't had any posts so far for the Science and Religion module-the paper still might be worth mentioning here.
As the title 'Searching for Ethics in a Secular Society' suggests, the author tries to list some of the reasons why we have to search for 'ethics' in a 'secular' society. She says that it can be seen as a 21st century revolution in conscience and consciousness. It can be explained by the nature of our postmodern, industrialized Western democracies. These societies are pluralistic, secular in the public sphere, and multicultural. These features also mean that they lack a 'shared story'-the collection of fundamental values, beliefs, attitudes, principles,myths and commitments that we need to buy into in order to function as a society. This story, or societal-cultural paradigm is the glue that holds us together.
Our shared story has focused on the two major life events of each human life-birth and death.In the past, religion played a vital role in helping man understand these two events. We also bonded together through a shared religion-both in the present and with the past and future generations Modern scholars such as Tom Harper and Joseph Campbell favour the derivation of the word religion from ligare ("bind, connect"), probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect", which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.
The possibilities that new scientific developments have opened up in relation to birth and death is a major focus of contemporary ethical discussions. Through the use of a combination of genetic and new reproductive technologies, the very basis of human life and its mode of transmission can be altered. Modern medical 'miracles' held out hope, if not of immortality as most religions do, at least of delayed mortality. Extraordinary new advances in medical science have shocked us into recognizing that we do not have consensus about the values that we need in order to address the immense ethical issues these new technologies raise.
As the title 'Searching for Ethics in a Secular Society' suggests, the author tries to list some of the reasons why we have to search for 'ethics' in a 'secular' society. She says that it can be seen as a 21st century revolution in conscience and consciousness. It can be explained by the nature of our postmodern, industrialized Western democracies. These societies are pluralistic, secular in the public sphere, and multicultural. These features also mean that they lack a 'shared story'-the collection of fundamental values, beliefs, attitudes, principles,myths and commitments that we need to buy into in order to function as a society. This story, or societal-cultural paradigm is the glue that holds us together.
Our shared story has focused on the two major life events of each human life-birth and death.In the past, religion played a vital role in helping man understand these two events. We also bonded together through a shared religion-both in the present and with the past and future generations Modern scholars such as Tom Harper and Joseph Campbell favour the derivation of the word religion from ligare ("bind, connect"), probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect", which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.
The possibilities that new scientific developments have opened up in relation to birth and death is a major focus of contemporary ethical discussions. Through the use of a combination of genetic and new reproductive technologies, the very basis of human life and its mode of transmission can be altered. Modern medical 'miracles' held out hope, if not of immortality as most religions do, at least of delayed mortality. Extraordinary new advances in medical science have shocked us into recognizing that we do not have consensus about the values that we need in order to address the immense ethical issues these new technologies raise.
We cannot assume that there is consensus on the values we will uphold, since we no longer automatically have access to a received set of values through a shared religion. We must therefore find and agree on these values and the author feels that an important context in which we seek to do this is in relation to how we should and should not use the new science.
Considering the discussion we had in class, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the following point that she makes in the paper: Due to this loss of consensus on values, there is an adoption of a situational ethics approach. By doing so, we seem to have lost the ability to agree that anything is inherently wrong-wrong no matter how much good could come from doing it. But in a society that has no absolute moral rules or no external source of authority for those moral rules that it does have, can we implement a view that human cloning is inherently wrong? Can we believe in a moral absolute, even if we are not religious and even if we do not believe in a supernatural being as the ultimate authority?
She proposes that we can do this by accepting two values as absolutes-
Considering the discussion we had in class, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the following point that she makes in the paper: Due to this loss of consensus on values, there is an adoption of a situational ethics approach. By doing so, we seem to have lost the ability to agree that anything is inherently wrong-wrong no matter how much good could come from doing it. But in a society that has no absolute moral rules or no external source of authority for those moral rules that it does have, can we implement a view that human cloning is inherently wrong? Can we believe in a moral absolute, even if we are not religious and even if we do not believe in a supernatural being as the ultimate authority?
She proposes that we can do this by accepting two values as absolutes-
- Always act to ensure profound respect for all life, in particular human life.
- Protect and promote the human spirit-the metaphysical reality that we need to fully live fully human lives.
Let's examine current law regarding human cloning.
On December 14, 2001, the UN General Assembly began elaborating an international convention against the reproductive cloning of humans. A broad coalition of States, including Spain, Italy, the Philippines, the US, Costa Rice and the Holy See sought to extend the debate to ban all forms of human cloning, noting that, in their view, therapeutic human cloning violates human dignity. Costa Rica proposed the adoption of an international convention to ban all forms of Human Cloning. Unable to reach a consensus on a binding convention, in March 2005 a non-binding United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning for the ban of all forms of Human Cloning contrary to human dignity, was finally adopted.
I would like to end this (rather long) post with an incident mentioned in the paper. Margaret Somerville attended a conference in Squaw Valley, California and had given a presentation outlining the case against human cloning. She argued for recognizing the moral status of the human embryo. She was followed by molecular and evolutionary biologist Professor Lee Silver of Princeton University. He stood before the audience, melodramatically took out a tissue and blew his nose into it. Without saying anything, he held it up to the audience, who were watching him attentively. He then said, 'This tissue has cells on it from inside of my nose. I would like Margo to understand that I believe these cells have the same moral status as human embryos.'
These two different views on the moral status of human embryos and human embryo research translate into antagonistic attitudes about the ethics of human cloning. So far no definitive answer has been provided because it is difficult to arrive at a consensus. In our postmodern, industrialized society, advancements in science and technology have questioned the very tenets of organized religion and a sense of the sacred. We are now at an impasse because we no longer have a 'shared story'. However the question remains as always-'Is it right?'
On December 14, 2001, the UN General Assembly began elaborating an international convention against the reproductive cloning of humans. A broad coalition of States, including Spain, Italy, the Philippines, the US, Costa Rice and the Holy See sought to extend the debate to ban all forms of human cloning, noting that, in their view, therapeutic human cloning violates human dignity. Costa Rica proposed the adoption of an international convention to ban all forms of Human Cloning. Unable to reach a consensus on a binding convention, in March 2005 a non-binding United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning for the ban of all forms of Human Cloning contrary to human dignity, was finally adopted.
I would like to end this (rather long) post with an incident mentioned in the paper. Margaret Somerville attended a conference in Squaw Valley, California and had given a presentation outlining the case against human cloning. She argued for recognizing the moral status of the human embryo. She was followed by molecular and evolutionary biologist Professor Lee Silver of Princeton University. He stood before the audience, melodramatically took out a tissue and blew his nose into it. Without saying anything, he held it up to the audience, who were watching him attentively. He then said, 'This tissue has cells on it from inside of my nose. I would like Margo to understand that I believe these cells have the same moral status as human embryos.'
These two different views on the moral status of human embryos and human embryo research translate into antagonistic attitudes about the ethics of human cloning. So far no definitive answer has been provided because it is difficult to arrive at a consensus. In our postmodern, industrialized society, advancements in science and technology have questioned the very tenets of organized religion and a sense of the sacred. We are now at an impasse because we no longer have a 'shared story'. However the question remains as always-'Is it right?'
---
(1) I do apologize for the unwieldiness of this post and also for providing numerous hyperlinks. But I feel that it adds to the content of this post and provides numerous additional sources of information.
(2) Such is the VASTNESS of this module that there are several other issues which can be taken for discussion. Maybe we can take them up if we get a good exchange going in the comments section.
(3) And most importantly, I do apologize for the inordinate delay in updating the blog.
While her concerns about relativism are noted, her paper seems to echo anthropocentric undertones- which is quite problematic in ethics.
ReplyDelete