I have written before on the debate in the US about stem cell research. I want to return to the topic today by way of a critique of an op-ed in today's NYT, "A Middle Ground for Stem Cells," by Yuval Levin. I will analyze his argument and then offer a Taoist response, along the way considering the criticism that this is not really a "middle ground".
Here's what I think is the core of his argument:
...It is a simple and uncontroversial biological fact that a human life begins when an embryo is created. That embryo is human, and it is alive; its human life will last until its death, whether that comes days after conception or many decades later surrounded by children and grandchildren.
But the biological fact that a human life begins at conception does not by itself settle the ethical debate. The human embryo is a human organism, but is this being — microscopically small, with no self-awareness and little resemblance to us — a person, with a right to life?
Many advocates of federal financing for embryo-destructive research begin from a negative answer to that question. They argue that the human embryo is just too small, too unlike us in appearance, or too lacking in consciousness or sensitivity to pain or other critical mental capacity to be granted a place in the human family. But surely America has learned the hard way not to assign human worth by appearances. And surely we would not deny those who have lost some mental faculties the right to be regarded with respect and protected from harm. Why should we deny it to those whose faculties are still developing?
At its heart, then, when the biology and politics have been stipulated away, the stem cell debate is not about when human life begins but about whether every human life is equal. The circumstances of the embryo outside the body of a mother put that question in perhaps the most exaggerated form imaginable, but they do not change the question.
There is much to respond to here. First, we can dispatch with his invocation of "appearance." No seriously argument that favors stem cell research would hold that embryos are not persons because of their appearance. He is making straw men of his opponents here by suggesting that they are swayed by mere appearance - as opposed to his access to moral reality.
Next is his assertion of the "uncontroversial biological fact" that "human life begins at conception." There is, of course, much controversy surrounding this "fact," something he recognizes in the very next paragraph when he invokes the distinction between "human organism" and "person." His opponents would argue something closer to the assertion that an embryo is a potential person and that its moral status differs from that of a "viable" person. He does not engage this point but slaps it aside in the last sentence quoted above, which is a not-so-veiled rejection of the argument about "viability" in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
Mr. Levin is certainly entitled to his opinions. But the way he is framing this analysis is clearly not about finding a "middle ground." It is about rejecting out of hand strongly and reasonably held opposing arguments in order to shift the discussion toward his side of the debate. I don't know why the NYT's op-ed editors came up with, or acceded to, this title (since it is usually editors who title such things).
So, Levin is obviously an opponent of stem cell research (and abortion too I would suppose) and he is offering an argument from that point of view. He does not make a religious argument; he does not invoke a divinely granted sanctity of life. Rather, he reaches for a secularist, liberal basis for opposing stem cell research, grounding his case in a defense of equality: embryos are persons; all persons should be treated equally; therefore, embryos should not be killed.
He is obviously trying to turn the analytic tables on liberal supporters of stem cell research. But this move ultimately fails, when we think about it a bit more. A Taoist position might, then, offer stronger grounds for opposing stem cell research (not that I necessarily agree with that position; I am just using this opportunity to explicate it for your consideration).
More below the jump....
Levin makes the equality argument thusly:
America’s birth charter, the Declaration of Independence, asserts a positive answer to the question, and in lieu of an argument offers another assertion: that our equality is self-evident. But it is not. Indeed, the evidence of nature sometimes makes it very hard to believe that all human beings are equal. It takes a profound moral case to defend the proposition that the youngest and the oldest, the weakest and the strongest, all of us, simply by virtue of our common humanity, are in some basic and inalienable way equals.
It is not just the evidence of nature that undermines the general claim of essential human equality - a claim with which I sympathize. It is the evidence of human society. To put it starkly, no society, anywhere ever has truly enacted the ideal claim of human equality. From my own experience caring for my son Aidan, who was profoundly disabled, I can say that American society, in general, did not regard him with equal respect and protection that it granted most (not all, obviously) of its able-bodied members. It should have, by its own ideals, but it didn't. We constantly had to struggle to gain some portion of that equal respect and protection for him, but we often failed. It is very safe to say, sadly, that there are many, many people with physical and mental disabilities who are excluded from many aspects of American society. And some of these exclusions, especially as regards access to health care, can have life-threatening or life-ending consequences.
Bottom line: inequality is inconsistently and partially enacted (and the whole point of equality is impartiality) . Therefore, to invoke an equality claim in defense of embryos will require a thorough-going and consistent enactment of equality for all persons. Why privilege embryos over other individuals? (An objection here might be that killing is more severe than the consequences of inequality faced by disabled persons, to which I would reply that the inequalities faced by the disabled can be life threatening - there may be less distance here empirically than is generally realized) This would mean a massive public policy effort to improve the life conditions and chances for disabled people. I suspect Mr. Levin might not be up for that (talk about "profound moral case"), and, even if he were, his political allies would certainly balk at the endeavor.
And we haven't even considered economic inequality, which I will not take up here today.
Rather, let's push the argument further in another way. Let's say that America really does get serious about the blatant inequalities that beset it. There is another failing of Levin's argument about not killing persons. Let's say we agree that all persons should be treated equally and we should not kill persons. Of course, we know, that this kind of assertion is often then qualified to make exceptions for capital punishment and war. Unless Levin is willing to say that he will not accept any conditions whatsoever, then the ban on killing comes down to what reasons should be accepted for exceptions.
Two standard sorts of reasons come immediately to mind. For capital punishment we assume that persons should be killed if they are guilty of some heinous act. They have consciously transgressed clearly stated and understood moral limits and thus they deserve to die. Of course, we also know that any legal system that attempts to enact a death penalty is prone to mistakes from time to time. We know that those mistakes have become so common and egregious in certain areas of the US that moratoriums have had to be enacted. It seems to me that any practical system for carrying out a death penalty, however carefully justified in legal and moral terms, will necessarily result in the killing of some innocents. Thus, by accepting a death penalty system for those deserving of death we will inevitably cause the killing of some innocents. If you want to avoid killing innocents - and that is the point of Levin's argument - than you must not allow a death penalty.
War is even more problematic for Levin's equality argument. We know, with even greater confidence than in the death penalty case, that innocents will die in modern warfare. Look at Iraq. I believe that US military commanders do try to minimize the killing of innocents when they plan their attacks. But even with the most careful pre-war planning, thousands upon thousands of innocents have been killed, directly by US forces and indirectly as a consequence of the political situation created by the US invasion. A minimally consistent equality argument against killing would thus have to take a very strong stand against war.
In order for Levin's argument to have practical force, therefore, it would have to be coupled with action against the death penalty and war. Indeed, we might go further and say that since war can potentially kill many more innocents than stem cell research, stopping war should be the primary moral duty. Before we act against stem cell research, we must act against war. Otherwise we are not really committed to the notion that all persons are equal and that persons should not be killed.
At the end of the day, Levin's argument is not that strong. And this opens the door for the consideration of a Taoist alternative, which, by its nature, would not strive to be a "strong" (i.e. universally binding) argument, but one that would lend caution and pause to the stem cell debate.
A Taoist would find the whole "when does life begin" debate to be a waste of time. Way (Tao) encompasses both being and non-being. What we are now is a momentary, in the larger context of timeless Way, arrangement of matter. Before we took this form, we - or, at least, the stuff from which we are made - had some other form. When we die, we will be transformed again. Why privilege any particular moment in the continuing transformations of Way? Why make a crucial moral distinction out of the instant a sperm merges with an egg? Why not - as more conservative Catholic theology does - push the moral frontier back further and demand the protection of all sperms and unfertilized eggs? They are potentially human life and to destroy them is to destroy that potential. And why stop there? Why not demand protection of the precursor matter of eggs and sperm? Etc. ad infinitum.
A Taoist, however, could still put forth an argument against stem cell research without reference to some arbitrary notion of the "beginning of life." The first step is the general aversion to intervening in the unfolding processes of Way. This is the famous "do nothing" - wu wei - idea. This does not necessarily mean to never do anything but, rather, to avoid attempting to re-direct the natural course of events too much. I think stem cell research could be understood as a fairly significant intervention into the natural development of sperm, egg and embryo.
Taoists generally resist such action because they do not believe that human undertakings can change the course of Way. In this case, it might be argued that medical research can benefit certain individuals. A Taoist would counter that while it may be true certain individuals might be helped by certain forms of medical research, from a broader perspective the general human condition also suffers certain losses from the broad forces of modern society. Some people are helped, but others contract different diseases from the effects of the toxic chemicals created and discarded from the industrial infrastructure required to create medical technology. Some people are helped, but others are ignored in a global distribution of medical capacity that privileges individuals in one country much more than persons in some other countries.
We think we have made great progress, and in some ways maybe we have, but we have not escaped disease and incapacity and discomfort and death. Rather, a Taoist would say to an individual who hopes for a cure from stem cell research (a cure that, if it ever is discovered, will likely not be available in his or her lifetime): instead of building up expectations and hopes that could prove to be false, why not find a way to come to terms with your illness, to make the most of the life you have, as you have it now?
That may sound cold and uncaring, but there is a way that it is compassionate and helpful. Balancing hope and acceptance is always a challenge for people facing adversity. For a Taoist, hope resides not in an external deus ex machina, but in the confidence that one's inherent Integrity (te) will allow for the fullest possible expression of one's potential. And acceptance lies in embracing the idea that certain things are just beyond our control.
In the end, then, a Taoist approach would be skeptical of stem cell research, but would not demand an absolute ban - absolutes are not really a Taoist sensibility. It would counsel against intervening in the unfolding of Way and for an understanding of the frailties and limitaitons of all human life.
I am not saying that I agree with this position. Personally, I tend to be more open to the possibility of stem cell research. But I do believe that the Taoist argument, rooted as it is in a pragmatic understanding of the limits and unintended consequenes of human action, may be a more realistic objection than Levin's, with its invocation of an idealized equality that ultimately demonstrates the inconsistencies of his position.
If you want to argue against stem cell research, a Taoist position might be more effective. And if you want to argue in favor of stem cell research, there is always Confucianism - an argument for another day.
Comments