The Ethical Use of Biotechnology: Debating the Science of Perfecting Humans

Michael Sandel, the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, and Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, opened the 2008-09 Amherst College Colloquium Series (ACCS) with a lecture titled The Ethical Use of Biotechnology: Debating the Science of Perfecting Humans

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Biotechnology
• Ethics
• Perfecting
• Humans
• Engineering
• Amherst
• College
• Michael
• Sandel
• Peter
• Singer

[siutenioras]

I think it is a very good thing that this debate takes place. I think it is rather hard to decide, what can be done in many many cases and how we should behave. I think this debate will go on for a long time. I have many times debated on this issue at Klaipeda University. I hope this debate will not stop.

[AlexMoensChannel]

Damn, I came across this searching for more of Michael Sandel's stuff, and to see him pitted against someone with an equally formidable yet differing worldview is a mind-gasm in and of itself. It's certainly given me a lot to ponder over, consider, and re-consider regarding my own moral reasoning; as well as increasing my desire to acquire Australian swagger, ha.

[chikmagnet7]

@ZombieLincoln666 For instance, given a large enough population and few enough minorities, forced sterilization suddenly becomes morally permissible under Singer's view. Singer admitted that he would try to change the views of the racist majority, but such a view presupposes what is good or bad in the first place, as Sandel notes. Singer, just like you, and I, and everyone else, judges the moral worth of individual preferences even if he won't admit it.

Singer's view is consistent, not good.

[chikmagnet7]

@ZombieLincoln666 The fact that I couldn't tell you what a sound argument would look like is evidence that one doesn't exist. It would be dismissed on the grounds that it's premises are either incorrect or poorly reasoned.

This is a moral framework we're dealing with here, not a scientific one, and therefore falsifiable evidence isn't necessarily a boon. If you merely place value on people's preferences, then you end up allowing for the possibility of clearly immoral outcomes, as Sandel noted.

[ZombieLincoln666]

@chikmagnet7

But what would a "sound argument that homosexuality were wrong" even look like? On what grounds could any argument be dismissed?

The fact that Singer's utilitarian provides falsifiable claims on morality is a good thing. All good evidence must be falsifiable. You might not like that it could potentially lead to homosexuality being considered immoral, but it doesn't make his ethical system worse. I think it makes it better.

[chikmagnet7]

@ZombieLincoln666 I don't think anyone would deny that Singer's approach provides such a framework -- it does; it just provides the wrong one. If someone provided a sound argument for why homosexuality were intrinsically wrong, that seems to me to be perfectly reasonable grounds for accepting that stance. There simply is no such argument. Singer's approach forces you to say that homosexuality is not NOT wrong, that wrongness is determined only by preferences, i.e. that it is circumstantial.

[ZombieLincoln666]

@chikmagnet7

Singer's approach provides at least the framework for using evidence in ethical disagreements.

If someone provided good reasons and evidence supporting the stance that "homosexuality is wrong", you would have to concede as well under your interpretation of Sandel's ethics, so I don't see the big deal here.

[chikmagnet7]

@ZombieLincoln666 It's funny -- I found Sandel's much more forceful. That people take the view that "homosexuality is intrinsically wrong" is to say nothing about whether such people are right or wrong. Sandel's approach would require that people provide the reasons behind their intuitions with argument, examples, and evidence. Ultimately, the position will be found to be bankrupt. With Singer's approach, outlawing homosexuality seems perfectly valid so long as preferences are maximized overall.

[ZombieLincoln666]

I find Singer's arguments much more forceful than Sandel's appeal to ill-defined intrinsic values.

After all, people claim things like "homosexuality is intrinsically wrong". The utilitarian view pulls the rug out from these claims. It provides a reasonable and intuitive framework to judge actions ethically.

[ryan84160]

@oxcme85nfuynjesw8 What exactly do you mean by a "higher share of the suffering" ? and when did he say that you should bear a higher share of it ?

[katheryncruz24]

Amazing lectures....

[muhammadzahmad]

an amazing lecture with two great minds...