I'm guessing there's going to be a lot of talk on weblogs around the world about the primate cloning news. I forecast a lot of uninformed blather from a lot of people, from all over the moral, religious, political and scientific spectra. The fires will only be fueled further by the news that Ian Wilmut has decided that converting adult cells back to a pluripotent form is 'better' (in a technical, not ethical sense) than using 'cloned' human embryos.
My own concern is not with the status of human embryos, but with the increasing selfishness of our society, its unthinking dash into complete utilitarianism. I'm not going to say what I think about this, because my own ideas are not fully-formed, but I am concerned that all scientists, even those not involved in such obviously 'ethical' areas, think about what they can do, and more importantly what they should.
Comments
I think the reason you might think that utilitarianism is so prevalent is that those actively protesting a lot of science argue on a deontological basis (i.e. the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions), whereas a lot of scientists probably think of ethics in consequentialist terms. It's hard, a priori, to justify the context-less inherent wrongness of certain actions without evoking either an a priori code of laws (e.g. common sense, the Bible) or using Kant's rather esoteric reasoning, both of which probably rub scientists the wrong way. On the other hand, consequentialism lends itself to the feeling of quantitation and certainty, a specific theoretical justification, which I think matches scientific personalities much more. Just speculating here; I'm not saying one way is better than the other, just trying to come up with some reason why scientists might gravitate towards utilitarianism.
Posted by: such.ire | November 19, 2007 05:07 AM