Biological Manipulation and Human Dignity

The first two paragraphs of Steven Pinker's essay, "The Stupidity of Dignity," reveals a fundamental difference in philosophy between modernists and "classicists" (my term for those who adhere to classic philosophical assumptions articulated by Aristotle and Plato and clarified by the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine). Pinker and other modernists do not measure human worth by any inherent standards afforded to our nature. In their philosophy, each human being must prove his or her worth by exercising personal autonomy. Anybody not able to exert personal autonomy cannot be said to have equal worth. Pinker's hopes for the perfection of the human race through scientific progress imply this standard:

The Stupidity of Dignity

This spring, the President's Council on Bioethics released a 555-page report, titled Human Dignity and Bioethics. The Council, created in 2001 by George W. Bush, is a panel of scholars charged with advising the president and exploring policy issues related to the ethics of biomedical innovation, including drugs that would enhance cognition, genetic manipulation of animals or humans, therapies that could extend the lifespan, and embryonic stem cells and so-called "therapeutic cloning" that could furnish replacements for diseased tissue and organs. Advances like these, if translated into freely undertaken treatments, could make millions of people better off and no one worse off. So what's not to like? The advances do not raise the traditional concerns of bioethics, which focuses on potential harm and coercion of patients or research subjects. What, then, are the ethical concerns that call for a presidential council?

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. This collection of essays is the culmination of a long effort by the Council to place dignity at the center of bioethics. The general feeling is that, even if a new technology would improve life and health and decrease suffering and waste, it might have to be rejected, or even outlawed, if it affronted human dignity.

The effort behind manipulating human biology in order to increase desirable traits sound noble at first - until you scratch below the surface. Science fiction writers are especially good at scratching below the surface of such questions. Repeatedly, science fiction stories, novels, movies and television shows run the theme of genetic manipulation against human tendencies for discrimination, power and selfishness. They envision new hierarchies where

• The genetically enhanced rule over the unimproved
• Those for whom the enhancements don't work (and we know they would not work on everybody) are considered inferior stock
• The worth of the individual is based on his or her enhanced abilities
• But accomplishments are not as valued because they are due to scientific manipulation rather than individual effort

In short, such societies turn individuals into cogs in the machine. I am not suggesting that we base our moral decisions on works of fiction. However, these stories illustrate the concerns that are now being labeled as "conservative" and "religious right." The seeds of such a society are already present in our devaluation of the lives of the unborn, the severely handicapped, the comatose, the elderly and the dying.

Pinker claims, "For this government-sponsored bioethics does not want medical practice
to maximize health and flourishing; it considers that quest to be a bad
thing, not a good thing." This statement is simply not true. Maximizing health and human flourishing is the goal of science and technology, and is even considered by Catholics as part of God's plan of co-Creation. The question being asked by the presidential commission is what truly constitutes human flourishing. Can we be said to flourish when the health of some is accomplished by devaluing, using and discarding other human beings?

_____________________________________

The question of authentic human development is a key issue for the social life of Catholics (see the commentary on Gaudium et Spes).