Stem Cells and Slippery Slopes

From guest blogger, William.

In class we talked about stem cells and the moral arguments for and against the use of them. There are two types of stem cells. The first type is Human Embryonic Stem Cells (HESC). These are harvested from embryos inside of the womb and have many medical and industrial uses. The moral arguments against using this type of stem cell are very similar to the moral arguments against abortion. The second type is Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (IPS). These are created from skin cells and have the same uses as HESCs. The moral argument against using IPSs is interesting to say the least. Because IPSs are created using skin cells which are readily available and slough off of our bodies constantly, the arguments that are used to paint the use of HESCs as immoral do not work. Pretty much every modern philosopher thinks that the use of IPSs is completely moral. However, some philosophers have still tried to call the use of IPSs immoral. To do so they have made use of the slippery slope fallacy.

The slippery slope fallacy is a dangerous argument to use. In my opinion, it is an extremely poor argument to use in almost any debate. The premise of this argument is that the use of IPSs for medical and industrial use would send society down a dangerous path. This argument conjures up images of clone armies and forced cell harvesting, things that are clearly immoral. The issue with this argument is that it is essentially fear-mongering. There is no evidence that the use of IPSs will lead to the consequences laid out previously. Another problem with this argument is that it does not allow for any middle ground. It implies a direct movement from the use of IPSs for medical use and product testing to clone armies. However, the world simply does not work that way. Nature and society always regress back to the mean. While extremes may happen they are extremely unlikely. Yes, unintended consequences are guaranteed from any decision. But, in this argument they are simply incomprehensible. The argument against IPS use is a futile grasp at straws.

Affirmative Action Policy

From guest blogger, Alex.

The topic that struck the most interest in me was the discussion we had on affirmative action on Monday. Going into this situation, I was not in favor. The blunt reason was that I am a white male and feel as if it is working against me. However, by diving into the objections and claims by Pojman, I believe it is wrong for different reasons. The basis of affirmative action is to create an opportunity for all people to have an equal chance, and to minimize or stop discrimination. The first idea is that affirmative action requires discrimination against another group. Sure, it can be argued that the discrimination is lesser with affirmative action. However, the problem is discrimination, and there is still discrimination. Therefore, affirmative action doesn’t provide a solution to the base problem at hand, it just creates another form.

Second, Pojman says AA encourages mediocrity and incompetence. I wouldn’t stretch as far to say this, because I don’t think it necessarily “encourages” mediocrity. It doesn’t. However, I do believe that it undermines the principle of merit, and I believe this is wrong. Basing your hires off of skin color and not value is not how I think a business should be run.

This isn’t racism. It is the opposite of racism. Skin color does not make one person more valuable or worthy for a job. In my eyes, the background of a person is significant.

A white man can grow up his entire life in a neighborhood with all black men. Everything he does is associated with the black culture. Why does it matter that his skin color is white? On the other hand, a black man can grow up in a neighborhood full of white men. If he lives there from birth to adulthood, the chances are that he will act like those of white culture. Why does it matter that his skin color is black? It doesn’t make a difference in any way other than pigment, which should not have a role in the hiring of jobs. 

Brennan and the Right to Vote

From guest blogger, Aria.

Brennan argues that we have a right to vote; a right that needs to be legally protected, but the right to vote he argues, does not entail the rightness of voting. His main argument is that we have a duty to abstain from engaging in a collectively harmful activity, when such an activity does not pose a significant personal costs to us.

It’s worth mentioning that Brennan is not arguing that we have a duty to vote well, but a duty not to vote badly. He argues that irresponsible voters that do not have adequate knowledge about majority of the policies of a candidate, have a moral duty to abstain from voting rather than voting blindly (again he is not arguing that such individuals should face legal charges, he is only arguing solely from a moral perspective)

As it was discussed in class, some found this view really elitist and voiced their concerns that such moral duty infringes on citizen’s right to vote. I however, argue that his belief, although seemingly demanding, is morally sound. I think, we would all agree that if we were to have a surgery done on our heart, we would want our surgeon to be as competent as a surgeon can possibly be.  I argue that the same moral intuition should apply to the political decisions that we make. Such decisions determine policies that are going to have lasting effects on the lives of millions of people. Thus, it seems imperative to me that the political decisions that we make, through our votes, need to reflect the policies that are not harmful to the general public and the nation as whole.

Some might argue that it is often difficult to predict the consequences of many policies, thus such a duty is not morally plausible. But, note that Brennan is arguing that as long as we are voting on the basis of strong evidence, and some basic knowledge about those policies we are not doing anything morally wrong. What constitutes bad voting is “voting without sufficient evidence for harmful or unjust policies”. Furthermore, I argue that we are usually good at predicting what counts as a good policy based on some minimal research and some basic background knowledge. For instance, it’s been known for years that trickle-down economics fails to result in economic growth. Thus we have evidence that in majority of cases when such policy has been enacted it has failed. (one example is our own state where such policies have massively failed to cause economic growth) Thus, we have sufficient evidence that such policies would be harmful.  If I vote for a politician upholding such economic policy, even unknowingly, I believe that I have failed as citizen, since such decision could potentially harm not just me but millions of other people. Consequently, I completely agree with the argument Brennan puts forth.

What do you guys think? If you disagree with him, can you come up with counterarguments to explain why  he is wrong and such a moral obligation is unjustifiable?

Genetics and Moral Issues

From guest blogger, Rachel.

As a geneticist, I find the topics of cloning and stem cells very interesting. They are controversial, and their future ethical implications are unknown. For me there is not much to consider on the stem cell debate: I have always approved of both, and now that iPS is functional to reprogram cells, the debate is small. Cloning, however, has interesting implications for the future. I don’t agree with Allhoff’s argument for the immorality of cloning but I do think it would be unethical to clone for the purposes of a child. The hard part is that the potential research is very interesting, but that can be done with stem cells. It just all still seems so futuristic, but it’s the present. With epigenetics being studied more in depth, I wonder if something from that will arise to create another reason for the immorality of cloning for children. 

Should We Have Compulsory Voting

From guest blogger, Tessa.

I’ve had a hard time deciding how I feel about compulsory voting. Voter turnout in the United States has been extremely low, around 60% in the last few years, because the likelihood that one a single vote influences the outcome of an election is negligible. See suggest that compulsory voting will increase the legitimacy of the democratic government. I don’t necessarily believe that there will be market failure if we do not implement this policy, but I do think it could be beneficial. Because there is such a low voter turnout, there would be less margin of error in counting machines (such as the event in 2000, where the error exceeded the margin of victory for Bush). See also foresees that the electorate would be more representative of all citizens, since the sample is so skewed right now (racially and socio-economically). If people were forced to vote, they would be more inclined to become more informed about the election and candidates. If they are legally required to take time out of their day to vote, they might as well support someone who shares the same ideals and morals. Additionally, this policy would help reduce the role of money in politics and would also force politicians to change their campaign methods. Finally, politicians would have to shift their focus to different sets of issues because there will be new types of voters. Overall, I think this compulsory voting policy would be beneficial, but also doubtful that it will ever be implemented.

Why Cloning Is Immoral

From guest blogger, Ming,

In Allhoff’s article, he argues that it is morally wrong to clone because of some biological consequences that telomerase shortens from duplication. He also mentions cloning is wrong according to principle Q that the number of people survive is the same either decision you make, but it is morally wrong if you choose the worst one if one group of people would live shorter.

I agree that cloning is morally wrong, but not because of principle Q. First of all, I think that reproduction of human is different from reproduction of plants, because generally human reproduction requires combination of sperm and egg. However, cloning just requires DNA from a cell from scalp tissue of one person and I don’t think cloning follows natural law because it simply extract some DNA and produce a very similar “human-alike” product.

Also, I think cloning is different from having babies without genetic testing for diseases. Some people will have pre-marital medical exam before having babies, but it is not for sure that the genetic disorder will pass to next generation. Thus, it is hard for parents to abort babies or change other mates. However, we are hundred percent sure that cloning would shorten animals’ lifetime. It is immoral to make worst choice if you have other choice available.

The Dilemma of Nuclear Power

From guest blogger, Bethany.

In this world of environmental awareness, people are becoming increasingly concerned with efficient, clean energy. Wind and solar power are renewable and clean, but they are far less reliable than fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Despite the controversy surrounding it, nuclear power is a promising and reliable source of clean energy. However, do the risks of nuclear meltdown and contamination outweigh the benefits? Do the supposed environmental risks make the employment of nuclear power plants immoral?

There are several ways in which we can view this problem.  Interestingly, if we look at the issue of nuclear power from a hard-core environmentalist perspective, we may come to different conclusions. On the one hand, an environmentalist may argue that we can best protect the environment by replacing coal-burning plants with nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy does not pollute the environment, and it is extremely safe; the only meltdowns that have occurred were due to human error. On the other hand, some environmentalists may insist that it is immoral to install nuclear power plants because the highly toxic waste from nuclear reactor cores have half-lives of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Basically, this means that nuclear waste remains radioactive for a very long time and is detrimental to the environment if it is not stored properly. Additionally, there is always the risk of a meltdown, which would cause extreme damage to the environment.

From a Libertarian perspective, nuclear power should be completely moral because it does not infringe on anybody’s personal property rights. In contrast to popular belief, very little radiation is produced from nuclear power plants, so people who live near new plants would not have to relocate.

It is not obvious whether or not Block—who argues that there should be a personal property rights theory for environmental protection—would endorse nuclear power. When we look at the issue empirically, we see that nuclear waste is generally confined without a problem and that meltdowns are almost impossible when a plant is maintained correctly. However, if one believes that nuclear power is a terrible thing, then he or she must consider the effects of both coal and nuclear plants and ask the question, Which is the lesser of the two evils? After the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, many German nuclear power plants were shut down out of fear and replaced with coal-burning plants. Was this the moral decision? Should we be afraid of the chance of something going horribly wrong with a nuclear power plant? Or should we be more fearful of the widespread toll that coal-burning power plants take on environmental aspects such as air quality (which is ruined by burning fossil fuels and which has undoubtedly caused widespread medical issues such as lung disease).

I believe that, in this case, nuclear power plants are a far better option because they do not infringe on our collective personal property rights to breathe clean air, drink clean water, etc. Perhaps there are better options, but until science catches up, nuclear power should be more widely embraced.

Destroying Embryos for Research

From guest blogger, Alex.

We just discussed the use of stem cells for research in class, and I find it to be a very interesting topic. The potential healing benefits of HESC research provide strong grounds in favor of the research. If looked at from a consequentialist perspective, the potential health benefits from the research seem to outweigh the loss of embryos involved and whatever suffering results from that loss for people who want to protect embryos. However, most of those who oppose the research argue that the constraints against killing innocent people to promote social utility apply to human embryos. Thus, as long as we accept non-consequentialist constraints on killing persons, those supporting HESC research must respond to the claim that those constraints apply to human embryos. What do you guys think? Do human embryos have moral status? If so, why? If not, why not?

I think it helps to map out the argument that killing human embryos is immoral. From my very brief research, in its most basic form, the central argument supporting the claim that it is unethical to destroy human embryos seems to go as follows: It is morally impermissible to intentionally kill innocent human beings; the human embryo is an innocent human being; therefore it is morally impermissible to intentionally kill the human embryo. It is worth noting that this argument, if sound, would not suffice to show that all or even most HESC research is impermissible, since most researchers engaged in HESC research do not participate in the derivation of HESCs but instead use cell lines that researchers who performed the derivation have made available. It has now also been shown that embryonic cells can be derived from a human embryo without killing the fetus, so would it still be immoral to conduct HESC research? Let me know what you guys think…is it immoral to conduct stem cell research? Or do the potential health benefits make it morally permissible? Thanks.   

Is Cloning Moral?

From guest blogger, Michael.

A case against the moral permissibility of cloning, when the clones face significantly reduced lifespans, can be made on the basis that procreation through natural means will create offspring with a longer lifespan, and thus a higher quality of life.  Both sides can agree that if cloning could be done in a way that did not significantly lower the lifespan of the clones, it would be morally permissible. 

Well, a study recently released recently shows that a new set of 13 sheep clones are doing just fine.  They have yet to show any signs of premature aging, and are all around in great physical health.  So, assuming that we can now expect to someday live in a world where we can create healthy clones of ourselves, is cloning morally permissible?

Personally, I think it is, but for the sake of this blog post I will provide an argument against it.  Humans have been brought into this world in the same fashion for countless generations.  A man and woman engaging in passionate intimacy to bring new life into the world has some kind of natural value to it.  Humans are the byproduct of love, and that is how it ought to be.  To change this would be to change too fundamental a part of humanity, and cloning does just that.  It takes the grace out of the conception and makes the creation of a person no more significant the manufacturing of material goods.

My opponent may bring up the point that test tube babies have been produced in a somewhat-similar fashion for many years now.  None of the people created through such means seem to live any less dignified kind of life. But the babies conceived in test tubes are still an intimate combination of two beings.  Being nothing more than an identical copy of your parent may make your life seem less significant in some way.  The clone does not have its own sense of self.  It just a second copy.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/27/12294614/dolly-the-sheep-clone-health-aging-study