Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

“Because We Can!” Is not a moral argument. We must still answer, “Should We?”
Archdiocese of Washington ^ | June 10, 2013 | Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on 06/11/2013 2:57:47 PM PDT by NYer

At the bottom of this post is a powerful video that asks a fundamental moral question of a new and powerful scientific ability: “Should We?”

One of the great ethical and moral questions that besets us with new technologies, especially medical technologies, is whether our sheer capacity to do something thereby permits us to do that thing. Of course the answer to this ought to be “no.” Ability alone does not permit us to do anything we like.

I, for example, have the capacity, at least physically to do a lot of things I ought not do. I can steal, lie, damage, destroy and kill. Simply being able to do these things, even if I have “my own good reasons” for wanting to do them, does not give me carte blanche to in fact do them.

Groups and nations also have many capacities that they ought not act on. Perhaps one group more powerful than another can force its will on another, or one nation more powerful than another invade and enslave another nation. But again the mere power or capacity to act, does not give the group or nation the simple right to act. And of course the group or nation having the power will claim to have good reasons for doing what they do, but at the end of the day those reasons must judged by others, not merely asserted by the one who has the power.

Power without recognized limits can be a very ugly and destructive thing. And the power or capacity alone to do something is NOT a moral argument.

To some extent, everyone will recognize what has just been said as reasonable. But often, when it comes to science and new technologies, thinking becomes suddenly more fuzzy. This is especially the case in the realm of medicine, and medical technologies such as embryonic stem cell research, genetic manipulation, cloning, and many types of “reproductive” technologies such as in-vitro fertilization.

It will be granted that such matters often involve a lot of technical details that are difficult to understand. It is also understandable that many heart-wrenching issues revolve around such discussions, such as the hope to end disease or to overcome infertility.

But, too frequently we are asked refrain from any moral judgement by proponents of such things, and are often asked to accept the unreasonable notion that we ought to be able to do something merely because we are able to that thing, and the proponents have self-proclaimed good reasons to do it.

But as we saw above, in less heart-wrenching scenarios, mere ability, even if coupled with self-proclaimed good reasons is not alone a worthy moral argument. Many very ugly things have happened in human history on such faulty terms.

Again, let it be clearly stated, the ability to do something does not thereby confer the right to do it. Power does amount to a moral argument, and to the contrary, power often demands greater moral restraint of its possessor.

In the video below, which I hope you get a chance to see, the question is asked. “Should we?” For it would seem that we are close to capacity to bring certain extinct species back to life on this planet. Can we do this? It would seem we are close. But should we? Now THAT is a worthy and necessary moral consideration.

We have generally been conditioned by environmentalists to see extinction as always bad. But perhaps some extinction is necessary and god in the cycle of nature. Who gets to say what particular species might be good to reintroduce and what ones ought not?

Think about it. And think too about the modern moral tendency, especially in medicine to equate capacity with permission and moral rectitude. Many today demand the right to engage in certain scientific procedures and medical interventions simply because we can. Well, we can…but should we?


TOPICS: Catholic; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science

1 posted on 06/11/2013 2:57:47 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...


2 posted on 06/11/2013 2:58:29 PM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The question of "should we?" is not so easily resolved when it involves technology. So often, those are not questions of moral right and wrong so much as they are questions of Man's poor ability to foresee the consequences of his actions. It might seem "right" at the time for a single unmarried girl to abort her child, and certainly science has given us the means to do it. But in the long term, she will have taken a life, and that has untold impacts on her life, on the lives of perhaps millions of others, and certainly on the life she terminates. We may have the ability to clone beings, but what happens when the first person wants to clone himself? Is that clone a human or simply property? We may have the ability to gene splice pathogens into weapons-grade biological tools. But what happens when an unexpected mutation makes our antidotes ineffective and masses of humanity are wiped out?

Let's never let our hubris override sensible caution and plunge us headlong into a horror of our own making.

3 posted on 06/11/2013 3:14:49 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Well of course we should. Then after that we can begin gene modification. we could tweet things to eliminate diabetes, or heart disease, or color blindness.

Maybe we could work on finding the gene to raise IQ and superior muscle structure.

And once we get this group of really smart strong people we can't have them wasting their time with mundane ordinary work. We could also breed a group with lower IQs to do all the "manual" labor. Yeah that's the ticket... /SARC

4 posted on 06/11/2013 3:44:20 PM PDT by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Moral? The regime has no idea what that means.

5 posted on 06/11/2013 4:51:51 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson