A clear-cut matter of principle
July 20, 2006
David Quackenbush
As promised, President Bush moved rapidly Wednesday to veto H.R. 810, which would have opened the spigot of federal dollars in support of the destruction of human embryos for medical experimentation. Supporters of the farming of embryos have vowed to renew the attempt, however, and it remains urgent that defenders of embryonic human life continue to engage our fellow citizens on the question- -not only to prevent the killing of innocent human beings, but also to help all Americans see the real moral issues at stake.
In particular, we need to reflect on what this issue shows us about how ignorant we are becoming in regard to the real dynamics of moral judgment. It is chilling to discover how many advocates of embryonic stem cell research find it simply "self-evident" that the destruction of human embryos is morally permissible. There seems to be little or none of what- -in an earlier day- -might have been called "fear of doing wrong." Apparently, we believe ourselves to be too morally healthy, too unconflicted, for something as old-fashioned as that.
But fear of doing wrong is to the moral life what fear of physical pain is to bodily safety. Without fear of pain, animals would lope off happily toward any good thing in sight, paying no attention at all to intervening dangers. Down to the watering hole they would all go, heedless of lurking dangers. Today, the herd of miracle-cure seekers appears to me to be moving toward the destruction of human embryos with about as much discernment of hidden or obscured moral harm as a flock of thirst-crazed sheep.
But good moral decisions- -the key to genuine human happiness- -are impossible when our judgment is distorted by too much attention either to benefits or harm likely to result from possible action. In the case of bio-technology in general, and manipulation of human life in particular, the distortion at the moment is entirely on the side of the benefits. The very real prospect of revolutionary medical advances in the near future makes it inevitable that our judgment will be strongly moved by visions of health, escape from death, and a dramatic reduction in human suffering. The rush toward these benefits will need little encouragement. But to balance our judgment, we need a little more fear of evil around this watering hole.
A few questions
In the hope of helping to provoke a bit of such fear, I have a few questions to pose to those who find this question so simple, and the moral desirability of destructive embryonic research so clear.
Do we any longer believe that there are such things as "illicit means"? No doubt we admit in principle that there are illicit means, but are we thinking clearly about what they would look like in practice? Don't we, at some point, have to dust off some of the old fashioned moral reasoning that we used to take seriously? Suppose the Nazi says he'll spare the city if you cut the baby's throat? Is seeking a just answer to such questions a stupid exercise? Or is there a deep moral reality at stake?
How does increased complexity make discerning the right harder? When do complexity of circumstance and novelty of factors begin to throw us off our moral stride, to distract us from recognizing and respecting eternal principle?
Is the prospect of "off-the-charts" success in eliminating perennial forms of human suffering disorienting to our moral judgment? What happens if an entire people is offered a winning lottery ticket? Is it obvious how to keep our feet on the ground?
Certainly we cannot always simply escape from the real complexity and novelty of moral challenges by invoking just any old anchor from the simpler past. The lottery winner who simply decides to keep his day job may be buying himself some time, but eventually he will have to learn how to grow into his good fortune while protecting his good character.
Getting to the core
Turning to God and His law for guidance isn't always as easy as some make it out to be, of course. It is easy to ridicule the sometimes simplistic application of universal moral principle. It is easy enough to caricature the disproportion between the simplicity of universal principle and the thicket of circumstance and complexity that surround particular decisions. The sophisticated cloud of consensus huffing and puffing us toward a deliberate national policy of killing embryonic human beings has employed all the arts of mockery and dismissal to avoid the truly serious business of weighing the role of unchanging moral principle in this decision.
On the other hand, wanting miracle cures and wanting them yesterday is a rather simplistic guide to action as well. Some simple principles, perhaps, cut more deeply than others. Are we doing enough justice to the moral value of first principles as machetes? When is it necessary to hack away the undergrowth of desire, anticipation, possibility, to build on the solid, foundational structure of principle?
It is necessary wherever and whenever we have reason to believe that the undergrowth of circumstance is concealing from our moral eyes the fundamental lay of the land. For Americans, alarm bells should go off whenever we are told that, for the sake of material or tangible benefits, the question of universal human equality should be suppressed, or compromised, or overridden. Ask an American to accept the suppression of such principles, and he ought to tell you where you can dump your tea. I think it is time for us, with President Bush, to tell the embryo harvesters where they can dump their blood cures.
It seems to me that the question here is whether we believe any longer that apparently insignificant material realities can harbor enormous moral realities. While someone is waving "The Cure For Cancer" in front of us, it may be tempting to think that the "no big deal" mode of reasoning is adequate to dispense with any qualms about embryos. At such moments, it is alarmingly easy to convince ourselves that it is impossible for really teeny cell clusters to harbor ultimate moral realities. We don't know ourselves very well if we think that such moments are auspicious ones for moral decisions. If profound moral realities can be contained in apparently insignificant circumstances- -a thoughtless word that turns out to be an irretrievable betrayal, a quick self-indulgence that turns out to destroy a marriage, a cluster of cells that turns out to bear an eternal soul- -then it's not sufficient just to wave our hands and say "be reasonable- -curing Parkinson's is worth a couple of embryos." We may be giving up moral commitments that are priceless, for the false coin of promised progress in physical well-being that may well turn to ashes in our hands.
Need for real circumspection
Among other signs that this frenzied haste is accompanied by a lowering of our moral guard is the fact that bio-tech progress is SO rapid, SO amazing, and promises to be SO comprehensive and radical in, say, 10 years, that it is truly bizarre that so many people are so deeply committed to killing human embryos RIGHT NOW rather than waiting a couple of years to find better ways. I think it is just creepy, evil, myself. It has the feel of the kind of moral decision we have all made and regretted later- -but magnified a thousand-fold.
If President Bush's veto of the Senate authorization of federal research involving the deliberate destruction of human embryos prompts more Americans to inquire honestly what it means to say that "All men are created equal," as well as whether any material benefit whatsoever justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, then it will indeed have been an auspicious first veto. Let us take Mr. Bush's firm resolve in defense of moral principle as a model to all try to do a better job of fearing the evil we might do, if our moral eyes fail us.
David Quackenbush is a senior fellow at the Declaration Foundation and a tutor at Thomas Aquinas College in California. He is the father of 10 fully developed embryos.
David Quackenbush
As promised, President Bush moved rapidly Wednesday to veto H.R. 810, which would have opened the spigot of federal dollars in support of the destruction of human embryos for medical experimentation. Supporters of the farming of embryos have vowed to renew the attempt, however, and it remains urgent that defenders of embryonic human life continue to engage our fellow citizens on the questionIn particular, we need to reflect on what this issue shows us about how ignorant we are becoming in regard to the real dynamics of moral judgment. It is chilling to discover how many advocates of embryonic stem cell research find it simply "self-evident" that the destruction of human embryos is morally permissible. There seems to be little or none of what
But fear of doing wrong is to the moral life what fear of physical pain is to bodily safety. Without fear of pain, animals would lope off happily toward any good thing in sight, paying no attention at all to intervening dangers. Down to the watering hole they would all go, heedless of lurking dangers. Today, the herd of miracle-cure seekers appears to me to be moving toward the destruction of human embryos with about as much discernment of hidden or obscured moral harm as a flock of thirst-crazed sheep.
But good moral decisions
A few questions
In the hope of helping to provoke a bit of such fear, I have a few questions to pose to those who find this question so simple, and the moral desirability of destructive embryonic research so clear.
Do we any longer believe that there are such things as "illicit means"? No doubt we admit in principle that there are illicit means, but are we thinking clearly about what they would look like in practice? Don't we, at some point, have to dust off some of the old fashioned moral reasoning that we used to take seriously? Suppose the Nazi says he'll spare the city if you cut the baby's throat? Is seeking a just answer to such questions a stupid exercise? Or is there a deep moral reality at stake?
How does increased complexity make discerning the right harder? When do complexity of circumstance and novelty of factors begin to throw us off our moral stride, to distract us from recognizing and respecting eternal principle?
Is the prospect of "off-the-charts" success in eliminating perennial forms of human suffering disorienting to our moral judgment? What happens if an entire people is offered a winning lottery ticket? Is it obvious how to keep our feet on the ground?
Certainly we cannot always simply escape from the real complexity and novelty of moral challenges by invoking just any old anchor from the simpler past. The lottery winner who simply decides to keep his day job may be buying himself some time, but eventually he will have to learn how to grow into his good fortune while protecting his good character.
Getting to the core
Turning to God and His law for guidance isn't always as easy as some make it out to be, of course. It is easy to ridicule the sometimes simplistic application of universal moral principle. It is easy enough to caricature the disproportion between the simplicity of universal principle and the thicket of circumstance and complexity that surround particular decisions. The sophisticated cloud of consensus huffing and puffing us toward a deliberate national policy of killing embryonic human beings has employed all the arts of mockery and dismissal to avoid the truly serious business of weighing the role of unchanging moral principle in this decision.
On the other hand, wanting miracle cures and wanting them yesterday is a rather simplistic guide to action as well. Some simple principles, perhaps, cut more deeply than others. Are we doing enough justice to the moral value of first principles as machetes? When is it necessary to hack away the undergrowth of desire, anticipation, possibility, to build on the solid, foundational structure of principle?
It is necessary wherever and whenever we have reason to believe that the undergrowth of circumstance is concealing from our moral eyes the fundamental lay of the land. For Americans, alarm bells should go off whenever we are told that, for the sake of material or tangible benefits, the question of universal human equality should be suppressed, or compromised, or overridden. Ask an American to accept the suppression of such principles, and he ought to tell you where you can dump your tea. I think it is time for us, with President Bush, to tell the embryo harvesters where they can dump their blood cures.
It seems to me that the question here is whether we believe any longer that apparently insignificant material realities can harbor enormous moral realities. While someone is waving "The Cure For Cancer" in front of us, it may be tempting to think that the "no big deal" mode of reasoning is adequate to dispense with any qualms about embryos. At such moments, it is alarmingly easy to convince ourselves that it is impossible for really teeny cell clusters to harbor ultimate moral realities. We don't know ourselves very well if we think that such moments are auspicious ones for moral decisions. If profound moral realities can be contained in apparently insignificant circumstances
Need for real circumspection
Among other signs that this frenzied haste is accompanied by a lowering of our moral guard is the fact that bio-tech progress is SO rapid, SO amazing, and promises to be SO comprehensive and radical in, say, 10 years, that it is truly bizarre that so many people are so deeply committed to killing human embryos RIGHT NOW rather than waiting a couple of years to find better ways. I think it is just creepy, evil, myself. It has the feel of the kind of moral decision we have all made and regretted later
If President Bush's veto of the Senate authorization of federal research involving the deliberate destruction of human embryos prompts more Americans to inquire honestly what it means to say that "All men are created equal," as well as whether any material benefit whatsoever justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, then it will indeed have been an auspicious first veto. Let us take Mr. Bush's firm resolve in defense of moral principle as a model to all try to do a better job of fearing the evil we might do, if our moral eyes fail us.
David Quackenbush is a senior fellow at the Declaration Foundation and a tutor at Thomas Aquinas College in California. He is the father of 10 fully developed embryos.