This post is
an assigned response to Dr. Paul Louis Metzger’s blog post, Should Ethics Be “Biologicized”? What Might
that Mean for Eugenics?
which deals with those who see biological studies—rather than philosophy—as the
true authority on ethical behavior as well as those who advocate for democratized eugenics.
While this is not a normal topic you might see on my blog, it is an important
issue to consider.
Dr. Metzger quotes Harvard
University’s Edward O. Wilson as supporting sociobiology, “the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior.”[1] So
is all of our social behavior, including ethical decisions, the result of our
biology? I am open to considering that the answer may not be as obvious as some might think. The psalmist in praising God wrote,
For you formed my inward parts;you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
I
praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well. (Psalm 139:133-14)
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well. (Psalm 139:133-14)
Certainly, we are complex and well-designed creatures. As our
knowledge of the human body has progressed we have begun to see a
mind-boggling level of complexity. In many cases, the complexity of the human body is
irreducible which means that the system/organ/structure in question had to be
designed and deployed intact and could not have evolved from some less complex state. Structures
such as the human appendix once considered vestigial (mostly useless) by
evolutionists have now in many cases be found to serve important functions. How
much information is contained in our DNA?
Perhaps you remember one of the original rides
in Disney's Tomorrowland was
called Autopia (1955). It involved being strapped into a small, smelly, slow, gas-powered car
and driving along miniature faux-freeways while being cautioned not to bump into the
car in front of you [which was one the few things that made the ride
interesting]. Starting in 1965, the cars were all mounted on a rail or concrete
center curb that kept you in your lane and reduced collisions. No matter how
you turned the wheel you still followed the rail to the end of the ride, in
fact, the steering system barely worked at all and at best allowed you to
finish the ride more quickly (by reducing friction against the guide rail).
Is it possible that we have some kind of
pre-programmed, Autopia-style ethical guide from which we cannot deviate? One
passed genetically from our parents and ancestors? Is this guide for our social
behavior something that has evolved or was it designed? Is it violable or
inviolable? Is it possible that there are biological circuit boards, related to our ethical behavior, that were designed and programmed by a loving Creator? While I don’t want to rule out that possibility, such a record would certainly have been corrupted by the fall (Genesis 3). If micro-evolution (variations within a species) always involves a loss of preexisting genetic material, how would a biologicized ethical system be any different? I cast my vote for the philosophical and theological disciplines being better suited to watch over and determine how ethical our social behavior is than that of evolutionary biology. Yet I might be surprised.
What about those who drive too slow, who
impede the pleasure of others? Should they be removed from the ride, or, to
borrow a reality-show metaphor, be voted off the island? Who decides? If ethics
are pre-programmed then the resulting democratically determined eugenics would be
in keeping with such evolutionary-developed ethics. This is frightening.
Dr. Metzger shares this concern, “one of my
fears in this democratic country is that we champion a form of utilitarianism,
which entails the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of
people.” Utilitarian ethics, while effective in getting things done, are
not kind to those whose existence stands in the way of the comfort and pleasure
of the majority and is judged expendable. He cautions that the elderly,
prisoners, and other minority communities, would be at risk. This is no minor issue as
the masses seem to become increasingly self-focused and unwilling to sacrifice
for others. I totally agree with Metzger’s statement that,
Wilson’s
discussion of eugenics in On Human Nature evinces not the
prejudice and racism of which he had been accused, but rather a naïveté about
the prospect that science will be guided by the essential goodness and
rationality of mankind. Not only does Wilson display too much confidence in
science’s ability to control human genetics safely, he also believes that
adherence to the democratic process will eliminate the potential for abuse.
Scientists and structures of power are not as
good as all that. In addition, democratic nations are not immune from racism, ethnic
cleansing, infanticide, euthanasia, forced sterilization, and involuntary human
testing of new drugs. Large governments also tend to be heavy-handed in suppressing
those most immune to their propaganda and most independent from their
entitlement programs.
It is the work of a corrupt ethic to demand
the sacrifice of another to further one’s own advantage. Rather, it is the work of love
to set aside the natural inclination of self-preservation for the benefit of
another. I remember the classic goodbye from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, after Mr. Spock entered an area
flooded with deadly radiation to save his crewmates at the cost of his own
life,
Spock: Do not grieve, Admiral. It is
logical. The needs of the many, outweigh...
Kirk: The needs of the few.
Spock: Or the one...
This logic is certainly utilitarian, but
it doesn’t impose the demands of such reasoning upon another. It is a cruciform
utilitarianism that lays down one’s own life and rights for those of others—as many
others as possible. This is certainly not what would occur through democratic
eugenics unless it was in the form of guilt-tripping the minority to “do their
duty” to sacrifice for the majority. Such coercion would again reveal an ethical corruption was in play. [Such social pressure to conform also brings to mind Shirley Jackson's 1948 short story, The Lottery, and the 1969 film based on it. The line, "Hesh-up Tessie, be a good sport!" is a scene I haven't forgotten since I first saw it in Elementary School.]
In the movies, Admiral Kirk learned a lesson through this
and subsequent events that led him to risk his "everything" in the sequel for the
life of the “new” Spock. Was this biological or something more? Later in
explaining why he was willing to lose his ship and even his own son to save
Spock, Kirk reversed Spock’s reasoning, “Because, the
needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many.” Yet, even in this reversal, there was no top-down
self-serving demand upon another. This is just a scene from a sci-fi movie, not
actual history, but I wonder if as a metaphor it might provide a challenge to
those of us safely situated in the dominant culture.
What if we began to see the marginalized and
devalued as more worthy of being saved than we are of being comfortable? What if the structures of power oppose such advocacy and shared honor? There
is more on the line than we think. Kirk, for all his flaws, might have been on
to something as we see in his encounter with the grateful Ambassador Sarek (Spock’s father),
Sarek:
Kirk, I thank you. What you have done is...
Kirk: What
I have done, I had to do.
Sarek: But
at what cost? Your ship. Your son.
Kirk: If I
hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul.
Certainly,
those immersed in eugenics would fail to recognize that all people (regardless
of race, class, education and intelligence, attractiveness, physical capabilities, and overall health) are made in the image of God. If we are not made in the
image of God what could we possibly mean when referring to the soul? The
psalmist quoted above concluded his song with a request that the Lord, would
not allow him to continue in corrupted thinking, social behavior, or ethicizing...
Search me, O God, and know
my heart!
Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any grievous way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting! (Psalm 139:23-24)
Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any grievous way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting! (Psalm 139:23-24)
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” (2 Cor. 5:17)
[1] E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology:
The New Synthesis, 25th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge, MA:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1975/2000), page 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment