I've been reading - with interest, this week - the proposals for sanctioning the experimental use of hybrid human-animal embryos and the reduction on pregnancy termination time-limits.
I often find - with such emotive and controversial subject matter - that the objections are difficult to comprehend. I, fairly obviously, have a legal bias towards many topical issues raised in the contemporary media and will often adopt the correct legal stance (out of habit) before considering any moral implications.
My problem (with the hybrid embryo proposals in particular) is that so many of the objections vociferated on the Radio or in the national press are arguments on "ethical" grounds.
"Ethical" - eth·i·cal - [eth-i-kuhl] –adjective
1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession.
What is ethical? There is demonstrably no consensus on 'ethical' issues or debates would not be so divisive. It seems, to me, that very often ethical correctness is borne out of indoctrinated religious ideals. I'd be interested to see what percentage of those against the experimental utilisation of hybrid embryos are religious against those who vote in it's favour.
I'm not criticising religion per se. I am more concerned that, as we strive to diversify our population with a multitude of cultural and religious denominations, we are allowing politics and laws to be determined by an increasingly varied representation of religious beliefs. I'm not religiophobic. And I understand and respect the need to embrace everyone's beliefs. But not to the detriment of the majority who do not uphold such ideals.
Democracy will out in Parliament. But I reserve uncertainty over the interference of religion in law.
1 comment:
Interesting. Alastair Pennycook (1998) writes about the concept of situated (not situational) ethics , modifying the concept of situated knowledges from Donna Haraway. He writes:
"For Foucault(1984), morality has to do with codes and prescriptions, with the ways in which certain acts and behaviours are permitted or forbidden. Ethics, by contrast, have to do with 'the kind of relationship you ought to have with yourself'...The significance of this distinction is that it draws attention to the difference between human rights as a moral code and human rights as specific local choices in terms of preferred futures. The notion of situated ethics, therefore, is intended to refer to the localised process of establishing what is ethically preferable."
I'm no philosopher, but my reading of this would suggest that this concept has a place at the heart of your debate.
Nx
Post a Comment