morality and facts on the ground

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

In the debate over embryonic stem cell reasearch, part of the difficulty those who favor federal funding face when confronting those who don’t is that the “cures” they speculate about are simply not here yet.

But suppose that changes?

Suppose two years from now we turn on the evening news and Brian Williams starts the newscast off by saying, “We begin tonight’s broadcast with extraordinary news from the medical community”.

Then we are switched over to a reporter who takes us to a hospital…to a room where we see people gathered around a podium. One of them is Michael J Fox. Then we listen as a doctor explains how, through enbryonic stem cell research, she and others have been able to make enormous progress in ameiliorating Mr. Fox’s symptoms. And, sure enough, Fox stands at the podium and we see a man remarkably more capable of controlling his body. We see before and after footage and are simply amazed.

Then someone asks the doctor how this was done and in the course of her explanation she notes the breakthrough was possible only because of research done on embryonic stem cells. She emphasizes that research derived from adult stem cells were not nearly as effective. She also adds that researchers are on the brink of discovering many more breakthroughs that will dramatically improve the lives of those who are schizophrenic or are autistic or are paralyzed.

So suddenly cures for dreaded afflictions and diseases once thought to be possible only hypothetically “down the road” have now in fact become a reality.

Would that fact shift the ethical debate----dramatically?

I suspect it would.

Thus we can clearly see a relationship between facts that change and changing reactions to the facts. And how this might change our value judgments.

But, at the same time, however, this does not change the fact that philosophers would still not be any closer to establishing that embryonic stem cell research is, objectively, moral.

But is, in fact, this true?

And here, alas, we start going around and around and around in the same tautological circles regarding the relationship between human language and human reality. And then, even more enigmatically, around the relationship between that relationship and the very fact of existence itself.

2

I suspect those people who REALLY believe such research is morally wrong would cling to their position regardless of an increase in the benefits of such research, while those people who would be swayed by the medical advances perhaps did not hold such a strong opinion on the immorality of the research to begin with. Ultimately society at large will determine, over time, whether or not the benefits outweigh the potential moral pitfalls; it isn’t about demonstrating which side is correct, its about finding a balance between two irreconcilable positions. Cost-benefit analysis ends up being the arbitor in these sort of cases, eventually. There will always be people who think embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong, just as there will always be people who think it is morally right.

3

That is true of course. But my speculation here is that, subconsciously, folks like this treat their value judgments more as psychological defense mechanisms than as clearly reasoned philosophical arguments.

Nothing will budge them because they refuse to allow conflicting points of view to dislodge a comforting sense of being grounded in a wholistic sense of reality. Most derive this from a belief in God, but some are able to do so through a belief in Reason.

But this can, at times, be true only to the extent their moral convictions are at a distance from actual consequences. It is one thing to fiercely eschew stem cell research as immoral when total strangers have the afflictions that might be cured, and another thing altogether to do so when someone you love dearly becomes so afflicted. Or, of course, if you yourself are stricken.

The film Extreme Measures explored this using experiments done on the homeless rather than stem cells.
But, sure, some folks will never, ever, change their minds.

This relates to the “conflicting goods” argument – one I bring up again and again – that William Barrett relates in his book Irrational Man:

For the choice in…human [ethical] situations is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the the ultimate outcome and even—or most of all—our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

If you don’t do stem cell research some will see this as “good” because they construe stem cells as human life. If you do the reasearch others see this as “good” because it might lead to cures for afflictions that bring grievious pain and disability to millions.

And, so, in a demoncracy, moderation, negociation and compromise will try to fit the the law somewhere in the middle of the moral and political spectrum. But it is this ambiguity itself that discomfits many. They want to be – to feel – certain that something is always the right thing to do.