Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

A response to Leiter's post

[Thought that some MOJ-readers might want to consider this response to Leiter's post, by Eliot Reed.]

But what about this argument for banning stem cell research, which makes no appeal to the doctrine of any religion? I use "stem cells" as shorthand for "embryonic stem cells" below:

1) Ceteris paribus, it is unethical to experiment on nonconsenting human life.
2) Stem cells are nonconsenting human lives.
3) None of the conditions that would negate the ceteris paribus condition in (1) are present.
4) Therefore, it is unethical to experiment on stem cells.
5) The government should not fund unethical research.
6) Therefore, the government should not fund stem cell research.

Or, alternatively,

7) Defining other members of homo sapiens as not really human, or as subhuman, or unworthy of moral consideration, has been the cause of great moral evils such as genocide.
8) The tendency to degrade or "other" members of homo sapiens and define them as not really human, subhuman, or unworthy of moral consideration, has been present and widespread in a great many societies and cultures, including our own.
9) Therefore, we should be extremely wary of defining other members of homo sapiens as nonhuman or subhuman or not worthy of moral consideration.
10) Stem cells are members of homo sapiens.
11) Therefore, we should be extremely wary of defining stem cells as not really human, subhuman, or unworthy of moral consideration.
12) If we are extremely wary of defining X as not really human, subhuman, or unworthy of moral consideration, the government should not fund research on X's.
13) Therefore, the government should not fund research on stem cells.

I don't see any appeals to God, immortal souls, revealed truth, the teachings of some particular religion, or any such indica of religiousness in these arguments. I see some controversial premises there, including ones I don't buy, but I don't see why any of these premises would be the wrong kinds of reasons, or why the commonly accepted truths of science etc. would render them obviously false.

Posted by: Elliot Reed | Jul 27, 2006 3:00:22 PM
_______________

Any thoughts?
_______________
mp

https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2006/07/a_response_to_l.html

Perry, Michael | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515a9a69e200e5504b5c468833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A response to Leiter's post :