Part II: The Ethics of the Early Life Issues
If the philosophical landscape has changed so dramatically, upon precisely what philosophical premises are these new ethical norms founded? And how do they differ from the Natural Law philosophies?
This section gives brief definitions of the various schools of thought that have given rise to the current legislative and ethical situation with regard new reproductive technologies and related research[1].
Anti-Realism [2]: Rejection, in one or another form or area of inquiry, of realism, the view that there are knowable mind-dependent facts, objects, or properties. Metaphysical realists make the general claim that there is a world of mind-independent objects [objective reality]. Realists in particular areas make more specific or limited claims. Thus moral realists hold that there are mind-independent moral properties, mathematical realists that there are mind-independent mathematical facts…[etc]. Anti-realists deny either that facts of the relevant sort are mind-independent or that knowledge of such facts is possible [3].
Ethical Constructivism [4]: A form of anti-realism about ethics which holds that there are moral facts and truths, but insists that these facts and truths are in some way constituted by or dependent on our moral beliefs, reactions, or attitudes…Moral relativism is a constructivist view that allows for a plurality of moral facts and truths.
Postmodernism [5]: Is…regarded as a complex cluster concept that includes the following elements: an anti- (or post-) epistomological standpoint; anti-essentialism; anti-realism; anti-foundationalism; opposition to transcendental arguments and transcendental standpoints; rejection of the picture of truth as correspondence to reality; rejection of the very idea of canonical descriptions; rejection of final vocabularies; i.e., rejection of principles, distinctions, and descriptions that are thought to be unconditionally binding for all times, persons, and places.
Relativism [6]: The denial that there are certain kinds of universal truths. There are two main types, cognitive, and ethical. Cognitive relativism holds that there are no universal truths about the world: the world has no intrinsic characteristics, there are just different ways of interpreting it[7]… [Philosopher Richard] Rorty says, e.g. That “’Objective truth’ is no more and no less than the best idea we currently have about how to explain what is going on.” Critics of cognitive relativism contend that it is self-referentially incoherent, since it presents its statements as universally true [i.e. It is presented as a “fact” that there are no facts], rather than relatively so.
Ethical relativism is the theory that there are no universally valid moral principles: all moral principles are valid relative to culture or individual choice … Subjectivism … maintains that individual choices are what determine the validity of a moral principle. Its motto is ‘Morality lies in the eyes of the beholder.”…The opposite of ethical relativism is ethical objectivism, which asserts that although cultures may differ in their moral principles, some moral principles have universal validity. Even if e.g. a culture does not recognize a duty to refrain from gratuitous harm, that principle is valid and the culture should adhere to it.
Situation Ethics [8]: A kind of anti-theoretical, case-by-case applied ethics in vogue largely in some European and American religious circles for twenty years or so following World War II. It is characterized by the insistence that each moral choice must be determined by one’s particular context or situation – i.e.: by a consideration of the outcomes that various possible courses of action might have, given one’s situation. To that degree, situation ethics has affinities to both act utilitarianism and traditional casuistry. But in contrast to utilitarianism, situation ethics rejects the idea that there are universal or even fixed moral principles beyond various indeterminate commitments or ideals (e.g., to Christian love or humanism). In contrast to traditional casuistry, it rejects the effort to construct general guidelines from a case or to classify the salient features of a case so that it can be used as a precedent. The anti-theoretical stance of situation ethics is so thoroughgoing that writers identified with the position have not carefully described its connections to consequentialism, existentialism, intuitionism, personalism, pragmatism, relativism, or any other developed philosophical view to which it appears to have some affinity.
Social Constructivism [9]: Any of a variety of views which claim that knowledge in some area is the product of our social practices and institutions, or of the interaction and negotiations between relevant social groups. Mild versions hold that social factors shape interpretations of the world. Stronger versions maintain that the world, or some significant portion of it, is somehow constituted by theories, practices, and institutions. Defenders often move from mild to stronger versions by insisting that the world is accessible to us only through our interpretations, and that the idea of an independent reality is at best an irrelevant abstraction and at worst incoherent.
Utilitarianism[10]: The moral theory that an action is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much good (utility) for a all people affected by the action as any alternative action the person could do instead. Its best-known proponent is John Stuart Mill,[11] who formulated the greatest happiness principle (also called the principle of utility): always act so as to produce the greatest happiness…Most debate about utilitarianism has focused on its moral implications. Critics have argued that its implications sharply conflict with most people’s considered moral judgments, and that this is a strong reason to reject [it]…Utilitarianism requires, in individual actions and in public policy, maximizing utility [happiness or pleasure] without regard to its distribution between different persons[12]. Thus it seems to ignore individual rights, whether specific individuals morally deserve particular benefits or burdens, and potentially to endorse great inequalities between persons; e.g. some critics have charged that according to utilitarianism slavery would be morally justified if its benefits to the slave-owners sufficiently outweighed the burdens to the slaves and if it produced more overall utility than alternative practices possible in that society.
[1] The definitions are taken from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition, 1999.
[2] CDP pg. 33 “Anti-Realism”
[3] cf. Descartes “Cogito ergo sum” “I think therefore I am”, as the only knowable fact.
[4] CDP pg. 283 “Ethical Constructivism”
[5] CDP pg. 725 “Postmodern”
[6] CDP pg. 790 “Relativism, ethical”
[7] The argument about the nature of the unborn has been guided by cognitive relativism. Many abortion advocates will insist, along with bioethicists in favour of cloning, that the nature of a child or embryo or clone changes according to the desires or beliefs of observers, creators, donors or legislatures. It is commonly argued that an IVF embryo is a “child” if it is wanted by a couple, and only a “pre-embryo” or “medical research material” if it is not. Legislation often reflects this attitude.
[8] CDP pg. 846 “Situation Ethics”
[9] CDP pg. 855 “Social Constructivism”
[10] Bioethics, as a normative ethical system, is essentially a form of utilitarianism. Princeton Bioethicist, Peter Singer, who advocates infanticide and euthanasia of the elderly and ill on utilitarian principles, is considered the leading bioethics thinker in the world.
[11] John Stuart Mill: British philosopher, political economist and Member of Parliament. An influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. He was an advocate of classical utilitarianism.
[12] Peter singer’s argument in favour of infanticide of disabled newborns is based on the utilitarian principle that the child’s own suffering and that which he causes others who have to care for him, will increase the amount of unhappiness in the world. Killing such a child before, at or after birth will reduce the amount of suffering and increase the total amount of happiness in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment