This sad illustration points to a very basic, philosophical principle that is instinctive to almost everyone: what something consists of or is made up of points to what it is for or why it is in existence. To put it philosophically, the ontology or nature of something points to the teleology or purpose of that something. The ipod's nature is to play music - that is what it is designed to do - not to be a parts dealer. Ontology and teleology, nature and purpose, are tightly connected.
It is very important to realize that by knowing somethings ontology, we can learn and, most of the time, see right away its teleology. This points to what is natural for the object. We can also learn the ontology of something by knowing the teleology of it. For instance, I know when I see a remote control that it is meant (teleology) to control a device such as a tv. Therefore, it is quite safe to assume that the buttons on the remote control (ontology) are there to actualize its teleology - change the channel, turn up the volume, etc. This link between ontology and teleology shows us the natural state, expression, and limitations of a certain object. To take away the natural teleology from the ontology (like the ipod example) brings about unnatural, perverse, and illogical teleologies.
Francis Kamm, in an article advocating embryonic stem cell research, makes an interesting point that dabbles with this link between ontology and teleology. She talks about how an embryo that is outside of a sustaining enviroment (i.e. womb) due to in vitro fertilization, and will not be placed into a sustaining enviroment,
can be used in biomedical research because they will die anyways. Now the problem I find in this reasoning is not so much what is said as much as what is impied by Kamm. She assumes that an embryo outside of a sustaining enviroment changes its teleology. This means that environment, not ontology, justifies the teleology ascribed to an embryo. Now that an embryo is outside of its natural environment, it is open to any teleology we want it to be like stem cell research. I think the question should be: "Should these embryo's be in an unsustaining environment or not?" Kamm makes a subtle move though by telling us enviroment dictates teleology, which I think is a dangerous move.What is the proper ontology and teleology of an embryo though? Well the ontology, nature, of an embryo is its DNA, and its DNA points to its teleology: to be a fully developed human being. This means that an embryo's proper environment is to be in a place where the ontology can actualize the teleology. To break this link is to mess with the natural state of an embryo.
I say all of this with great hesitation too. I am very sympathetic to embryonic stem cell research. It could change lives and it could save lives. I have a cousin who is mentally handicaped and it has brought his entire family to the brink multiple times. He is about 5 years older than me but will never hit the maturity physically and mentally of a two year old. Biomedical research can help families and lives to never have to face such difficulties. I honestly do not think though that when it comes to human life you can truly make a utilitarian argument. It is not all about numbers, which is hard to think about in this modern world. We have to respect life before we can justify messing with it.
8 comments:
Such a heated topic you bring to the table. I am impressed with the way that you force on to understand the teleology and ontology of a subject before sinking into the issue. any debated issue has to be taken back to the basis for the discussion to be fully developed. the topic is life, so one has to decide what life is, how it is created, and why it was created. to remove it from it's natural purpose of existence is to make it completely void. without purpose (teleology) life has no reason to exist. to create an embryo with the sole purpose of removing it from its natural purpose, to be made into a complete human life, is an act against mature itself. you are recreating the definition of what a life is. if an embryo is not believed to be a life then it is removed from its natural state. so is embryonic research an act against nature? Is committing an act against nature, removing a given creation out of it designated environment, ok as long as it is for science and the further development of man kind? Further, is the study of natural disease, birth defects that are not caused by outside involvement (i.e. substance abuse), and degenerative conditions necessary? Or should be let nature continue to work in its natural state, unaltered by man?
Lots of questions. There is no problem with "altering" nature in respect to disease if I understand you correctly. I am more than happy to take medicine to get me well. When it comes to destroying embryos and taking them completely out of their teleology, it becomes different.
What I am bringing up is simply a version of the potential life argument. This understands that human life has a worth that an ipod or bacteria does not have. It's value is not based on solely on utilitarian ideas either; meaning that a million embryos for 2 million lives isn't neccessarily just. However, Steve Jobs can make 2 million ipods to save two older ipods and there is no moral weight to this decision dirrectly.
In regards to defining life, this argument again is based on potential life. Since the teleology of an embryo is a developed human being and the ontology shows that this can be actualized (thus why sperm or egg on their own does not have the same moral wieght; it is when an embryo is concieved is when it has the right ontology), to cut that process off is to cut off a human life. This isn't a blowout argument, but I think it makes us rethink some assumptions we have.
Some thoughts.
Yes, I think this is a solid argument, Philip, when you clean it up some more. The article feels a little disjointed going from the iPod example into teleological examples.
The iPod, even new ones, can be created for the purpose of servicing older iPods. The firearm world could been this way as new parts may offer better precision, but the old handmade guns offer better feel. Replacing pieces of the old with the new may actually make sense in some areas.
It all has to do with the purpose assigned by its creator, as I see it.
Someone could make tea kettle for the teleology of making tea. But that doesn't prevent it from having multiple teleologies. It may serve a further purpose of being melted down and used for other tea kettles once it has aged and lacks usefulness. That's what recycling is all about.
A human head may be made for the purpose of protecting the brain (a naturalist cannot say this, they can only describe what the head does), but once soccer was invented, the head served an additional teleology of striking the ball. So now we see the head as an instrument, as well as a protector (if I'm seeing it rightly).
So when talking about teleology a few more distinctions need to be made. The teleology of the materials of a dollar bill (ink and paper) could be many. The nature of the thing is simple. But when it is printed for the purpose of currency, something else happens. It takes on a different telos that is above merely its materials. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
This is something the naturalist will not acknowledge when it comes to humans but actually packs meaning into being a human. A naturalist simply sees our value in our function, period. As you said, teleology based on utility. A cog for society to keep the species regenerating. But with this view, there is no intrinsic value in any human, much less an embryo.
The 'potential argument' is an old one. The potential for human life counts as part of a cumulative case for defending life. At a very minimum it should give us pause and pay attention to what is going on.
Simply stating that a human person (in or out of the womb) is considered less human simply based on environment is very weak. If Kamm was suddenly kidnapped out of her environment on earth and put her in an unsustainable one on Mars, would she consider it moral for scientists to suddenly harvest her organs after they transplanted her? If she put herself on Mars, then being an organ donor is not out of the question. But requiring the unborn to be organ donors without their signature is a form of kidnapping, if the analogy fits.
I'm certainly for life-giving medicines affecting the 'course' of nature. But I've always viewed diseases as 'unnatural' in the proper sense and only 'natural' in the cause/effect sense. Diseases actually conflict with human telos, not contribute to it.
But when we affect the telos of one human to help the telos of another human, we're contradicting our own humanity.
It is uncertain scientifically whether newly formed embryos are humans yet, especially in light of the twinning issue. Yet, doesn't prudence tell us that when we are uncertain that we should err on the side of caution. Erring on the side of indiscretion, in all moral areas, might itself be a meta-moral problem that precedes the discussion.
But at a minimum, Kamm's argument isn't strong and I would keep pointing out inconsistencies in it.
With new developments in undifferentiated stem cells harvested from tissues that do not require killing an embryo, the whole point may be moot. But time will tell with that.
Thanks for the response dale. I agree that this argument needs a lot of work. I wasn't that concerned with Kamm's argument as much as it shows that subtle move of trying to change the nature and purpose of an embryo by having an already unjustified enviroment. It is definitely a bad argument on her part.
The potential argument is nothing new, as you said, and I thought it kind of a weak argument until I looked at it this way. The more I've studied this, the more I understand that DNA is a blueprint more than just information. Science will always be uncertain with these distinctions between embryo and human and so on. I think our DNA and/or ontology tells us much more about an embryo's value than we want to admit at times.
With this said, there is so much ambiguity. "It's just a cluster of cells," someone said in my class. Well true, but does that mean that because a fully grown human is a lot of clusters of cells that it has such a moral weight? What exactly was he suggesting? "It doesn't look human or act human, therefore its not human?" This seems shallow to me.
Another person in my class said that to stop embryonic stem cell research is to stop the human race from progressing. This a slippery slope. We have prgressed for milleniums without it, we have overpopulated without it, and the best thing about human history is its innovation when faced with obstacles (moral and/or scientific). Moreover, Hitler considered the Nazi philosophy to be the way to make humanity progress. Also any naturalist would want disease as a way for natural selection to take its course; can we progress out of evolution?
Anyways, the teleology part of the argument is definitely a weakness. It will be worked on through conversation and thinking about it for a while. You made a very important distinction that the purpose is assigned by the creator. I skipped that step or at least did not clarify and mention that step. That is where I will start my thoughts. Thanks again dale.
You're welcome, Philip. Thanks for the exchange.
One thing came to mind as I read your response is carefulness we need to say a human is identical to his/her DNA. This may play into the materialists hands and potentially deny an immaterial substances that explains so many other phenomena in human experiences, e.g. qualia, etc.
Yet I see the appeal as the DNA is entirely constructed at conception and is distinct from the mother. Therefore it at least has some properties that are not potentials and are not actually part of the mother.
Yes I agree that we need to make the distinction between DNA and being human. But as you said, DNA is far from something we need to shy away from. It's interesting, Friends is on tv right now and it is one where one of the characters is pregnant and goes to the doctor and sees the baby for the first time. It looks like a little peanut, but they recognize it as completely other entity. Not unconnected to the mother of father but completely separate.
Even the materialist or naturalist cannot hideaway from this understanding of otherness. The problem now comes in when they start calling it a parasite, or dependent on the mother thusly not its "own being". If this is the argument then from the moment it is able to live outside of the mother than they mother has no right to take its life.
These are strongly complex issues. The earlier this is dealt with the harder it is to distinguish. But I must say that the clearest distinction or understanding you will ever get, in my opinion, is at conception. The otherness demands at least consideration of dealing with something greater than yourself and your body.
This is not an issue I've really ever cared about because few people have problems with it. The fact that most Christians are for the rights of the child has little to do with most people I've ever talked to. The importance for the Christian in this issue I think is more about showing a coherent stance on the issue and not necessarily trying to convince everyone. Obviously this is all I am required to do anyways - to be coherent.
Coherent... but don't you think as we talk about issues like this one, it continues to raise the level of awareness. It is sad that rhetoric, the art of convincing, is naughty if your view isn't 'progressive.'
Along another note, I think frederica Mathewes-Green, "Abortion and the Search for Common Ground" is where the debate needs to go. The essay is in Wolfe's religious humanist anthology. She argues that both sides think abortion should happen less. What is more, she argues the issue that will gain traction is how to help pregnant women who are contemplating abortion. This seems to be where the decisions are made, regardless of 'right to life' issues. Though the baby and the mother are separate, it's a good practical idea to seek to care for them both together as together.
I will have to read that article. I think that really hits the nerve of the issue. Just on the Christian side (not "moral majority", but Christian), I have grown in the past year or two to understand issues like this as not political at all. They are extremely important, but I do not feel that I should choose a candidate based on their abortion or same sex marriage stances. This is a matter that is not politically, it is individual and social.
I have no problem raising these issues, but maybe we shouldn't do it as lobbyists in Washington (at least not primarily). Understanding the mother, knowing the mother, reaching out to the mother, and lovingly advising the mother is possibly a more lasting level. Although it is slower and more effort is needed, it will last and make an effect. To change laws will only change obligation, not lives. Not to mention that those lives have a good say in the laws.
Jesus did it the slow way, and is continuing it still today. A quick fix never lasts as long as a sure fix. I was watching, "Deadliest Catch" the other day and a part broke on the boat and they needed to weld it back in place. They did a "quick fix" and just hoped it lasted until the season ended. A new part would have been much better, but they had to get it done. It broke the next time they tried to use it. The slow way pays off in the long run.
Post a Comment