Obama Does the Confucian (but not the Daoist) Thing on Stem Cells

Yesterday President Obama eased certain limits on embryonic stem cell research in the US.  There are still various questions and restrictions remaining, especially on the issue of whether public money should be spent on experimentation on embryonic stems cells, but the move on Monday is widely seen as supportive of further stem cell research.

Obama's decision will ignite anew the American debate on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.  And both Confucianism and Daoism have something to say on these issues.

A modern Confucian position would generally, though with certain limitations, support embryonic stem cell research.  I derive this conclusion from a number of principles that I believe are rooted in The Analects and Mencius.

First, Confucians would not recognize an embryo as morally equivalent to a already-born and living human being.  When we consider the prime Confucian virtue of Humanity (ren - 仁) it leads us to an understanding of the essential sociability of personhood; that is, we become fully moral persons only through our social interactions with others.  This, then, suggests that an unborn embryo, in a pre-social condition (i.e. not yet fully embedded in living social relationships) has yet to achieve the same moral standing as an extant person.  This conclusion must be qualified to the extent that parents-to-be might recognize the potential personhood of a child-to-be and begin to create for him or her certain kinds of social relationships and expectations before birth. But this kind of recognition is contingent upon the parents' preferences: if the parents want to recognize the potential humanity of the fetus, and create for it a social context before birth, then the fetus may have a certain moral status as a person; but if the parents do not recognize the potential humanity of the fetus, and do not create for it a social context before birth, then the fetus can be denied the moral status of a person (in which case, and depending on further considerations, abortion would be morally acceptable).  That, I believe, is an internally consistent Confucian position.

In light of the above argument, there would seem to be circumstances (i.e. embyroes unwanted by the sperm and egg donors) that would lead a modern Confucian to accept embryonic stem cell research.  But, another important consideration for Confucians would be: to what end?

If the research works to enable individuals to better perform their duties (yi - 義) toward others, then it would be morally defensible for a Confucian. Stem cell science that allows children to better care for their parents (i.e. eases the burdens on parents of conditions like Parkinson's Disease) would be supported by Confucians.  But if the research was to advance improvements in the cosmetic appearance of otherwise healthy individuals, Confucians would resist it.  Such desires would be seen as unnecessary vanity and morally dubious.

Thus, for Confucians, acceptance of embryonic stem cell research is not unqualified, but under fairly clear conditions (i.e. involving embryos not yet embedded in social networks and for purposes that advance the fulfillment of familial and social duties) it would be permitted.

Philosophical Daoists, on the other hand, not so much.

The general Daoist embrace of wuwei (無為), which we might translate as "doing nothing" or "nothing's own doing," creates a certain skepticism toward advanced scientific research (I realize there is a difference here with Religious Daoists, who were famous for pursuing immortality; I am referring only to Philosophical Daoists).   This excerpt from Daodejing 29 expresses that skepticism:

Longing  to take hold of all beneath heaven and improve it.  I've seen such dreams invariably fail.  All beneath heaven is a sacred vessel, something beyond all improvement. Try to improve it and you ruin it.  Try to hold it and you lose it.

On the question of embryonic stem cell research, then, a modern Daoist might ask: why?  What do we think we are accomplishing by it?  The alleviation of human suffering?  Perhaps that will be gained in certain specific cases, though even that is not assured (i.e. curing one medical condition by no means saves an individual from another unrelated medical condition or some other personal tragedy).  But the broader experience of humans in the world, not to mention humans in Way, will not be fundamentally altered.  We will be born, live, decline, die in generally the same patterns as we always have.  Life expectancies can be extended but even those apparent advances would, for a Daoist, be weighed against the continual invention of new forms of human suffering (the evermore powerful forces of violence and war; AIDS; etc.). 

For Daoists, there is not an absolute rejection of scientific research.  Indeed, for Daoists there isn't really any absolute anything (Way is too vast and vague, beyond human understanding of capacity to shape or control).   Thus, the question of whether the state should ban or support any particular type of scientific research is a secondary concern.  Rather, a Daoist would simply advance a general skepticism, looking straight into the eyes of the person advancing stem cell research and asking: why? 

Comments

[Ahistoricality]

With scientific research, I can definitely see the minimalist Daoist position against it, but there's also the parable of the butcher: we must understand the nature of things so we can live in harmony with the Way. Science, especially biological science, over the last quarter century has become much more powerfully integrative: the categories which divided the world into biology, chemistry, physics, medicine, ecology, psychology, etc., have broken down and there is a continuum of understanding which is much more naturalistic, systemic and fluid. We may go from breaking our blade to seeing the way one day, but it takes practice.

[The Rambling Taoist]

I think you covered that nicely!

As an individual with several neurological abnormalities, one might think I'd be cheering on this decision. In truth, I'm rather ambivalent about it. As you aptly point out, I will still suffer from something and die in the end.

I also worry about unintended consequences. It seems to be like most every scientific breakthrough creates new problems that must be solved by new scientific breakthroughs which create new problems...like GMOs.

[casey kochmer]

I had to think about this for a moment.

As a modern Taoist what is my view? My initial view is indifferent actually. I am not in a position to judge others or how they explore life.

The actual process has become so emotionally charged that I no longer think people can be objective and follow their heart on the question very clearly.

The larger problem is this, the rate of change within society is so great, I cannot as an educated individual make valid choices based on the projected information presented to the public.

Society has kicked up a dust storm so vast, that I have opted to walk out of it entirely

Unless a decision clearly disregards personal potential, clearly violates how we reach out kindness and a person's ability towards become a true human... Its just more red dust.

So in the end I am neutral towards it. I consider it as red dust.

[dg]

i think you're distinction of "religious" and "philosophical" Daoism is incorrect. All Daoists are both religious and philosophical, but belong to different schools, sects, whatever you want to call them (there my knowledge wanes). not to mention immortality can be physical and spiritual.

but I agree, though I don't feel strongly about stem cell research either way, my primary question is why?

[cell functions]

i don't know why all the mess about stem cells