Some MOJ-readers will be interested in this article by Louis M. Guenin, a member of the Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Harvard Medical School: The Nonindividuation Argument Against Personhood,Philosophy, 81 (2006), 463-502. Here is the abstract:
I consider the argument, thought to clinch the moral case for use of
a human embryo solely as a means, that (i) only a human individual can
be a person, (ii) because it can happen at any time before formation of
the primitive streak that an embryo splits into monozygotic twins, no
embryo in which the primitive streak has not formed is a human
individual, and therefore (iii) no embryo in which the primitive streak
has not formed is a person. I explore the following proffered arguments
for (ii): (a) indivisibility is a necessary condition of individuality,
(b) nonidentity of an embryo with successor twins impugns the embryo’s
individuality, and (c) totipotency of an embryo’s constituents is
inconsistent with the embryo’s being a human individual. These
arguments are tested and found wanting; so too is an alternative to
(a), the argument that indivisibility is intrinsic to personhood.
Whereupon (ii) is unsustained. In search of ways to rehabilitate the
nonindividuation argument, I canvass alternative metaphysical views and
inquire further into biological individuality, but find that the
argument cannot be saved. I conclude by analyzing where this leaves
matters concerning the morality of embryo use.
In the article, Professor Guenin explains at length and with rigor
why the argument at issue (NA) does not work. "If you and I are human individuals, so too are early embryos." (P. 501.) This is a conclusion in which Robby George and many others will concur.
The final paragraph of Guenin's essay, however, will be less welcome:
If NA slays no dragons, neither does its defeat win the day for zygotic personhood. Proponents of zygotic personhood must yet make their case. They are apt to mention that we must show respect for the sacred divine gift of human life by refraining from killing any developmental stage of a human organism, that we should adopt zygotic personhood because we cannot identtify any plausible prenatal personhood-conferring event other than conception, and that because fertilization creates a new genome, fertilization creates a person. Arrayed against zygotic personhood stand accounts that demand one or another cerebral attribute for personhood. My own account contends that upon a woman's and coprogenitor's morally permissible exercise of the discretion to decline intrauterine transfer of an embryo lying outside them, the developmental potential of that embryo is so bounded that it cannot mature, and hence that neither does there correspond to that embryo a nomologically possible person into which the embryo is then capable of developing and that could be harmed, nor could anyone gain anything for any being by treating the embryo itself as a person rather than by using it in humanitarian research. We are back to the debate that raged before twinnability entered. Our NA excursion has resembled the journey of Wagner's audience, as whimsically depicted by Anna Russell, as of the moment in Gotterdammerung when the ring falls to the bottom of the Rhine--the place where it lay when the story began. "You could have skipped the first three nights and be as far ahead as you are now without sitting through this ordeal--and at these prices!" [Pp. 502-03.] _______________ mp
[Given some of the posts in the last twenty-four hours, I thought that this excerpt from an e-mail message I received this morning, from a dear friend and MOJ-reader, would be of interest to some other MOJ-readers:] I have to say that -- to put this judiciously -- I don't really think that [Karen] Armstrong is a reputable source. Of course, you're right that she's forgotten more about this than I'll even know ... but ... the bit I think I know just doesn't jibe with some things she says -- things that seem not only false, but hard to square with minimal acquaintance with relevant facts. (Some historians I trust much think she's got an ax to grind and that compromises her work.)
Here's a concrete case to think about. She says, in the paper you quote, "Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades." And then there's this from the massively erudite historian of the Byzantine Empire, George Ostrogorsky, in whose magnum opus one finds: "At the same time, these great [10th century] conquests must be regarded as evidence of the powerful religious enthusiasm which inspired the Byzantines in their struggle against the infidel. Nicephorus Phocas was entirely possessed by this enthusiasm. For him, the war with Islam was a kind of sacred mission. He even claimed that those who fell in fighting the infidel should be declared martyrs. This claim expressed with curious intensity the Byzantine feeling that the war with the Muslims was a Holy War..." (History of the Byzantine State, p. 288). As Ostrogorsky makes clear elsewhere, the feeling of Holy War was more than reciprocated.
For a historian to claim that Christian Islamophobia began with the Crusadesis to forget the 400 years of history that preceded the Crusades -- lots of bad blood and mutual vilification between Christians and Muslims. And of course, it is also to forget the Christianophobia of the Muslims who were in a civilizational conflict with the Byzantines that whole time. There's just a lot of bad blood....
[Post 9/11, ] it can't hurt for us to become a lot more familiar with the history of the conflict between our faiths -- to learn more about it than superficial stuff about the Crusades. It's an ugly history, I've found. On all sides. Pretty much without exception. _______________ mp
Stuart Buck directs attention to this translation of the Regensburg speech's German that indicates the Pope distanced himself somewhat more from the Byzantine Emperor's line about Muhammad than the original translation to English indicated.
On Sept. 26, 2002, the F.B.I. called Project A-O and told the
Canadian police that Mr. Arar was scheduled to arrive in about one hour
from Zurich. The F.B.I. also said it planned to question Mr. Arar and
then send him back to Switzerland. Responding to a fax from the F.B.I.,
the Mounted Police provided the American investigators with a list of
questions for Mr. Arar. Like the other information, it included many
false claims about Mr. Arar, the commission found.
The Canadian
police “had no idea of what would eventually transpire,’’ the
commission said. “It did not occur to them that the American
authorities were contemplating sending Mr. Arar to Syria.”
While
the F.B.I. and the Mounted Police kept up their communications about
Mr. Arar, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs was not told about his
detention for almost three days. Its officials, acting on calls from
worried relatives, had been trying to find him. Similarly, American
officials denied Mr. Arar’s requests to speak with the Canadian
Consulate in New York, a violation of international agreements.
Evidence
presented to the commission, said Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo, its lead
counsel, showed that the F.B.I. continued to keep its Canadian
counterparts in the dark even while an American jet was carrying Mr.
Arar to Jordan. The panel found that American officials “believed —
quite correctly — that, if informed, the Canadians would have serious
concerns about the plan to remove Mr. Arar to Syria.”
Mr. Arar
arrived in Syria on Oct. 9, 2002, and was imprisoned there until Oct.
5, 2003. It took Canadian officials, however, until Oct. 21 to locate
him in Syria. The commission concludes that Syrian officials at first
denied knowing Mr. Arar’s whereabouts to hide the fact that he was
being tortured. It says that, among other things, he was beaten with a
shredded electrical cable until he was disoriented.
I have found reading the various MOJ and other contributions to the discussion of the Pope’s Regensburg address informative. I have also reread several more times the Pope’s address, and I find myself being mystified by the reaction of some to it. I hasten to add that my reaction is to some of the western press and academy who have been strongly critical of the Pope’s remarks. In particular, I have found the September 16, 2006 editorial of the New York Times lacking in understanding of what Benedict was saying. It is difficult for me to comprehend how the authors of this editorial could have asserted the points they made. In the end, I cannot see how the authors could have carefully read the Pope’s address and then said the things that they did.
One of the more disturbing observations made in this editorial is the statement: “The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly.” After reading again the Pope’s address, I found that he is not guilty of that which the Times accuses him. I have listened carefully to all that Pope Benedict said. Moreover, I wonder if the Times editorial writers ever considered that the world listens carefully to their editorials; moreover, do they consider the possibility that they can sow pain, either deliberately or carelessly? Frankly, I think there are elements in the Times that have decided to critique time and again the Church and its leadership regardless of what they have or have not done. Some evidence of this is the approach they have taken to Pius XII. During and after the Second World War, the Times attributed to Pius XII strong efforts to aid the Jewish people during and after the Holocaust. However, after 1998, their tack was different because they then began to attack the man they had once praised without citing evidence that would support such a change. In the end, I wonder if they had read their earlier articles on this man whom they were now vilifying. It seems possible that the memory holes of Winston Smith may exist in a building off of Times Square in New York City. On the other hand, there are voices in the western press who appear to have read carefully what the Pope did say. One of these accounts appears in The Times (London) editorial, “The Pope and the Prophet”, also of September 16, 2006. [Here]
It needs to be clear to all of us that dialogue between Christianity and Islam is not only possible. It is also real. There are elements of Christianity which mistrust Islam. But, there are also elements of Islam that not only mistrust Christianity but repress it. For example, the Pope has reaffirmed today that he will be going to Turkey as planned—in spite of his concerns about Turkey wanting to join the European Union. We need to take stock of the fact that while the practice of Christianity is allowed in Turkey, worship cannot be public. The fact that a building is used as a church cannot be evident from its exterior. Its identity must be concealed from public view. In other Islamic countries, the practice of Christianity—public or private—is forbidden. In still other Islamic countries, Christians are persecuted in a variety of ways—including harassment, prosecution, and destruction of property, including attacks on churches.
While this person may have been speaking for herself, I ponder a recent news photograph that was taken in London at a demonstration against the Pope: this picture shows a woman was holding a sign that reads “Islam Will Conquer Rome.” Keeping in mind what the Emperor Nero purportedly did when this city was ablaze, I wonder what the New York Times will do should this ever happen. Will it speak out? Will it fiddle? Or, will it simply do nothing?RJA sj
Uber-megachurch pastor Joel Osteen may be the only person left who has not commented on the fallout from Pope Benedict's speech. But the brand of the Gospel preached by Rev. Osteen -- little talk of sin, lots of talk of financial prosperity -- informs my reaction to the fallout; in particular, to any suggestion that the violence of some Muslims must be attributed to the faith tradition they proclaim.
The fact that Rev. Osteen's congregation has become the largest in the nation, having taken over a major sports arena, tells us something about the state of American Christianity. So does the fact that Time magazine saw fit to devote its current cover to the question, "Does God Want You to Be Rich?" So does the fact that the vast majority of citizens in the most intensely consumer-driven society in history are quick to identify themselves as Christians. My intimate knowledge of greedy Christians (including myself) does not lead me to dismiss Christianity as a religion of greed. It simply brings to mind G.K. Chesteron's famous saying, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."
It is beyond dispute that a deplorable amount of violence in the world today is the work of Muslims. And yes, many find explicit justification for their acts in certain passages of the Qur'an, just as many wealthy Christians grasp for more wealth while reciting "the Prayer of Jabez." I'm not an expert on Islam by any stretch of the imagination (though I confess that I enjoyed Karen Armstrong's "Islam: A Short History"), but when I'm tempted to label Islam based on the headline-making work of its followers, I need to ask whether I'm ready to label my own faith based on similar criteria.
Well, as Mike P now suggests, Karen Armstrong is not the point -- though Mike did introduce her popularity and her most recent book into the discussion. The point is what she had to say about Benedict's speech. I will let the silliness of her argument stand for itself.
Michael Perry is "not interested in Karen Armstong." This comes as a surprise, given his post of a few hours ago, which leads with the following: Who, you ask, is Karen Armstrong. The most popular--and the most accessible--of contemporary historians of religion. And a former nun. This is her most recent book.
Perhaps it's time to take another of the recommended "deap breath[s]," this time in anticipation of the following:
Mark, in his post this evening (here), calls Karen Armstrong's most recent book "a hopeless mish-mosh ..." Maybe so. But for another view, here's what the reviewer had to say last spring in the New York Times Book Review (here):
Moving back and forth from one culture to another, Ms. Armstrong, the
author of "A History of God" and histories of Buddhism and Islam,
provides a lucid, highly readable account of complex developments
occurring over many centuries. For the general reader "The Great
Transformation" is an ideal starting point for understanding how the
crowded heaven of warring gods, worshiped in violent rites, lost its
grip on the human imagination, which increasingly looked inward rather
than upward for enlightenment and transcendence.
In his final paragraph, the reviewer writes that Armstrong's volume is "a splendid book".
Now, I didn't set out to defend Karen Armstrong. I'm not competent to do that. In any event, I'm not interested in Karen Armstrong. I am interested in what she has to say in her comment on Benedict on Islam. Just as I am interested in what many others have to say--Juan Cole, Robert Miller, Martin Marty, not to mention several MOJ-bloggers--about Benedict on Islam. I don't think Mark is suggesting that we shouldn't be interested in what Karen Armstrong has to say--even if, after hearing it, we disagree with it, or think it incomplete. After all, she has doubtless forgotten more about Islam--and about Christianity's relation to Islam--than most of us will ever know. Her books include: Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (1993); Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World (2001); Islam: A Short History (2002).
I heard the same NPR story as Lisa about reactions in the European leftish press to Benedict's speech. Those reactions fit, I think, with a greater sense of alarm in Europe than in America about the possibility of Muslim domination there (because of immigration, low non-Muslim birthrates, past riots, the home-grown terrorists, etc.). While Le Monde doesn't share the Pope's diagnosis or prescription, it nevertheless shares the sense of worry. (In noting this, I'm not disagreeing with the Pope's suggestion that Le Monde can't generate a satisfactory answer to the problem.) Americans worry about terrorist attacks here, but not about the overall influence of radical or disaffected Islamists on the culture. I got this sense of difference in attitudes during my week teaching European students at the University of Siena Law and Religion Summer School in August (a wonderful time, by the way; ah bella Tuscany!). Even for those many Europeans who think that restriction of Islamic practices (like the headscarves in schools) is wrong and counterproductive, there is the sense that radical Islam is a central problem for the culture, including for religious freedom, whereas here the religious-freedom problems remain (for now) occasional and marginal.
