Matthew Yglesias: Life, Death, Utility

« All The World Explained In One Simple Image | Main | Crazy? »

Life, Death, Utility

Justin Logan thinks about stem cells and preventative war:

It seems to me that while the "culture of life" is busily making impassioned pleas on behalf of entities that do not possess moral agency, they're awfully busy dropping bombs on those who obviously do. It's not at all clear to me that they have their priorities straight. How about stop killing those who are demonstrably human, and then we'll have the debate about what it means to be human?

To put this another way, the main arguments on offer to defend the Iraq War all rely heavily on utilitarian reasoning. We will launch a war, killing many Americans and many more Iraqis, in order that the surviving, non-maimed Iraqis might lead a better post-liberation life. Or, we will launch a war, killing many Americans and many more Iraqis, in order to forestall the possibility that at some point in the future Saddam Hussein will do something that gets more people killed. The factual bases of these claims are disputable, but as normative statements they take on a reasonable form. But it's a form of argument that's wholly inconsistent with an opposition to stem cell research where you can grant the "pro life" side any premises about the nature of personhood you like and you still wind up with the conclusion that we're killing a few (purported) people in order to save and/or improve the lives of significantly more people. The fact that the American, Iraqi, and other victims of the Iraq War are more determinately persons than are embryos only strengthens the argument, but it's not essential to it.

October 7, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8342493d653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Life, Death, Utility:

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 8:00:15 AM

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 8:02:04 AM

Comments

I think that Bush et al would rate any good WASP American embryo over some living breathing eye-raqi.

Posted by: G | Oct 7, 2004 10:50:55 AM

The trouble with this line of argument is that rightwing justification of war isn't really utilitarian, even if they pretend it is in order to sway moderates. The reasoning is more along the lines of: "By waging war, we kill evil people, which is a heroic goal, worthy in itself. By accident, we sometimes kill innocent people, but we try not to, and we will keep getting better at avoiding it." If you accept stem cells as innocent human lives, on the other hand, destroying embryos intentionally (um, well, for any purpose other than helping infertile couples have kids, which for some reason is usually acceptable) is morally wrong because it is an inevitable part of the process rather than an accident that we can in principle try to avoid.

Posted by: Paul Callahan | Oct 7, 2004 10:55:43 AM

Is 'preventative' a word? Shouldn't it be 'preventive'?

Posted by: RC | Oct 7, 2004 11:06:20 AM

Paul Callahan makes a great point: Intention figures pretty prominently in most rightwing defenses of collateral killing.

But my understanding of stem cell research is that the embryos used are already nonviable because they were created in the process of fertility treatments, etc. Nobody, to my knowledge, is advocating creating embryos for the express purpose of destroying them to harvest stem cells.

This is an important detail since the notion that there is a qualitative difference between accidentally killing civilians and deliberately killing embryos offers a way around MY's argument. I'm not saying I agree with the rightwingers on either of these issues - I don't -but the facts about stem cell research are certainly relevant here.

Posted by: El Gringo Loco | Oct 7, 2004 11:08:57 AM

The reality is that the Bushies have no convictions other than that making a lot more money is good. They oppose stem cell research just to pander to the "religious right", and justify the killing in Iraq as the slaying of evil people for the same reason. The only reason for invading Iraq that fits all of the know facts is that it is a good money making operation. (Money making for the friends of Bush, of course, not for people in general, since most of the money being made is just diverted tax dollars.)

Posted by: Vaughn Hopkins | Oct 7, 2004 11:12:17 AM

Not only is it inconsistent with utilitarian theory because of the stem cell position (as described by Peter Singer in 'The President of Good and Evil' - an attempt to figure out Bush's philosophy), Bush has already stated his opposition to sacrificing Americans for the sake of others. From Singer's book, p. 169:

"For Bush to have made his case for war with Iraq exclusively on humanitarian grounds, his position would have had to undergo a dramatic turnaround from the one he professed during his campaign for the presidency. In the second of Bush's debates with Al Gore, the debate moderator, Jim Legrer, state that 600,000 people had died in Rwanda in 1994, and there was no intervention from the United States. Was it, he asked, a mistake not to intervene? Bush replied, 'I think the administration did the right thing in that case. I do...I thought they made the right decision no the send U.S. troops into Rwanda.' Those familiar with the situation in Rwanda at the time believe that a relatively small number of troops, certainly far fewer than the number necessary to overthrow Saddam, would have sufficed to stop the massacre. It is therefore curious that Bush should, in 2000, have believed it wrong to send a modest number of U.S. troops to Rwanda to save 600,000 lives, but by 2003 have changed his mind to such an extent that he was willing to send a much larger force to overthrow Saddam who, though undoubtedly oppressive and cruel, was not about to massacre 600,000 of his subjects.

Elsewhere, I've heard Clinton say that it was a mistake not to send troops, that even during the middle of it, they could have sent 10 or 20k troops and SAVED 200,000 LIVES.

If Bush was against that, he's against overthrowing Saddam for utilitarian reasons. Heck, if he was for it, he'd be for overthrowing countless other regimes.

Posted by: jeff | Oct 7, 2004 11:12:30 AM

I'm not sure I like this reasoning. I think you might be hardpressed to show that you're improving significantly more lives than your killing (if that's the way you want to think of it.) You end one life to benefit two more (the parents.) I think if the Iraq war killed one third of the Iraqi population, it would be hard to justify on humanitarian grounds (I think it's hard to justify as it is.)

Moreover, the Iraq war is more easily grouped into a series of actions to with a single goal. Abortions are lots of unrelated, independent actions without a single goal, and I don't see that they really can be grouped in a way that makes a lot of sense. So that would leave you to evaluate the prospects on a case by case basis for liberating each womb.

Posted by: Royko | Oct 7, 2004 11:27:50 AM

It's true that many of the arguments made to support the Iraq war involve utilitarian reasoning.

That isn't to say that the war can be justified only with utilitarian reasoning.

For example, those of us who operate within the (Catholic) just war tradition would offer much different arguments within that tradition. I believe the US invasion of Iraq meets that long-standing test. I'd note, since Matt probably didn't learn this in his philosophy classes, that the just war test doesn't "rely heavily on utiliatarian reasoning."

That utilitarian reasoning can justify all sorts of monstrous things is usually taken as a strike against it. Are we to take Matt's post as an endorsement of the Iraqi war and of embryonic stem cell research? Of one of those? Which? And why?

Posted by: Thomas | Oct 7, 2004 11:39:19 AM

This style of argumentation is highly susceptible to 'flipping'. If you accept stem cell research for its highly speculative and hopeful benefits and you accept Matthew's argument, you have a tough time explaining why speculative arguments about Iraq/Middle East freedom/the end of Islamist terrorism should not be listened to.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | Oct 7, 2004 11:42:33 AM

Never mind, I was thinking of abortion, not stem cell research. It's early.

Posted by: Royko | Oct 7, 2004 11:44:17 AM

El Gringo--You might have missed this, but most supporters of embryonic stem cell research affirmatively support the creation of embryos for the express purpose of destroying them for research and, eventually, for spare parts.

Didn't you hear Ron Reagan's speech? Haven't you seen the incredible attempts to suggest that an embryo created by cloning isn't in fact an embryo (because there's no "fertilization or conception")and wasn't created by cloning (but instead by the technical description of cloning).

Vaughn, if what you were saying is true, Bush would have thrown human embryos overboard in a heartbeat. There's more money behind the push to research on and destroy human embryos than anythig I've ever seen.

Posted by: Thoams | Oct 7, 2004 11:44:21 AM

Speaking from personal experience, arguments of this form are a very effective way to annoy and befuddle Tacitus.

Posted by: praktike | Oct 7, 2004 12:08:55 PM

How about stop killing those who are demonstrably human, and then we'll have the debate about what it means to be human?

This strikes me as an argument, not against the Iraq War or the "Culture of Life" (many members who, BTW, are uncomfortable with the war in Iraq), but against all war in general. Is Mr. Logan really saying that we can't have a principled defense for protecting embryos until we stop killing all those who are "demonstrably human"? Thus a person who believed that embryos are human beings could not have, in good conscience, bombed the Nazis in WWII? The one doesn't follow the other.

Posted by: Christine | Oct 7, 2004 12:10:06 PM

I gave some further thought to the arguments used in practice to justify killing innocent people in war.

Frankly, I can't recall a politician ever using a utilitarian argument in a speech to the public. It has probably occurred, but I doubt that it's an effective way to get votes. It's just cold.

The first line of defense is of course to avoid any mention of casualties on the other side, and this works well.

The second line of defense is, when pressed, to shift blame. It works like this:

War protester: "That bomb that was supposed to hit Ming the Merciless missed him and killed all his captive musicians. Think of the poor musicians!"

Sanctimonious official: "We extend our sympathy to the families of the poor musicians that Ming the Merciless killed by placing them in harm's way. Now we know why they call him merciless--killing his own musicians!"

Namsy pamsies like myself call this the "You made me do it!" defense, popular among abusers. But I have distinct recollections of hearing this used seriously by very serious men. So in practical terms, it is accepted as legitimate. Clearly you cannot apply it to stem cell research.

Finally, since someone else brought up the Catholic notion of just war, I wanted to mention my own somewhat dim recollection of Catholic ethical arguments. It seems that Catholic ethics never justify commiting any wrong on the basis of a greater good (which would be the utilitarian view). There are some tricky cases in which harm comes about as an unintended consequence of a morally good action (conjoined twin cases are a fertile field). They tend to be pretty rare, but they would almost certainly not apply to the intentional destruction of stem cells.

Posted by: Paul Callahan | Oct 7, 2004 12:26:17 PM

You seem to be making an argument against the old: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Posted by: Rook | Oct 7, 2004 12:36:13 PM

Silly mortals. Justification comes from God, not from your normative arguments.

Posted by: Matt | Oct 7, 2004 1:28:01 PM

I'd be interested to see an argument that either jus ad bello or jus in bellum is satisfied by the Iraq war, because it looks to me to fail on both prongs, and most of the Catholic heirarchy seemed to think, in advance, it would fail jus ad bello, and there have been fairly harsh comments made about it as it progressed regarding the jus in bellum standards.

Posted by: cmdicely | Oct 7, 2004 1:31:02 PM

They tend to be pretty rare, but they would almost certainly not apply to the intentional destruction of stem cells.

The destruction of stem cells in research is not an evil act any more than the destruction of blood cells in a blood test is. What is -- from the Catholic perspective -- evil is the production and destruction of embryos to secure the stem cells.

Posted by: cmdicely | Oct 7, 2004 1:33:37 PM

The destruction of stem cells in research is not an evil act any more than the destruction of blood cells in a blood test is.

Good point. I was writing sloppily.

Posted by: Paul Callahan | Oct 7, 2004 1:44:04 PM

Cells don't have moral agency, true. Nor do the crazed, senile, drunk, drugged, or unconscious. Either call it open season on people who aren't "moral agents" or abandon that line of reasoning.

-Are you awake?
-snrtt zzzzz
-I'm sorry. I should have asked, 'Are you a moral agent?'
-snkkxf zzzzz
-Just as I thought.
*blam* *blam*

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | Oct 7, 2004 1:46:20 PM

The comments above are ignoring a simple fact: stem cell research, as opposed to manufacturing operations, uses only the left over embryos from fertility treatments. Those embryos have been frozen and stored for future use in follow on fertility treatments. They would never, ever be raised to maturity as human beings with or without stem cell research. Research requires a relatively small number of embryos for the original cells, so the left overs from fertility treatments would be an over abundance for that purpose. One poster suggested that Bush would be dumping them by the thousands if my argument that Bush is moved only by dollars were true. Well, that is exactly the fate of those embryos if they are not used for research, and is their fate today. The whole stem cell research argument is a political one, aimed to attract "Christian right" voters to Bush.

Posted by: Vaughn Hopkins | Oct 7, 2004 2:32:20 PM

The Catholic position is that fertility treatments that create "extra" embryos that are then destroyed -- with or without being used in research -- themselves are morally illicit, and therefore that experiments that rely on them are illicit, and particularly that funding for them raises the risk of creating market incentives to encourage the illicit creation of embryos not intended for implantation.

Posted by: cmdicely | Oct 7, 2004 2:43:28 PM

cmdicely: Good summary of the Catholic position (at least as far as I understand it). One thing about the "market incentives" argument, is the rarely acknowledged the point that the market incentive is there already. Fertility clinics are big business, and they inevitably create many more embryos than will be implanted. It's not clear to me that the incentives will change appreciably if there is government funding for doing research using a tiny fraction of the discarded embryos.

I consider the Catholic Church's position to be consistent on this issue, but I am a little puzzled by other opponents of stem cell research. Evangelicals opposed to stem cell research have rarely (as far as I know) spoken out against fertility treatments. Some would probably make a moral distinction between destroying an embryo produced for IVF vs. destroying an equivalently developed embryo using a morning after pill.

It's easy to chalk it up to simple hypocrisy, but I suspect there is a more subtle moral distinction at work here in which creating new children is a moral good and putative therapies to improve the quality of life are not. I'm curious if any theologian has tried to make a formal distinction that allows embryo destruction for IVF but is opposed to stem cell harvesting.

The paranoid leftish side of me says that the distinction boils down to "Fertility is good, but attempts to take control of your own life in opposition to God's Plan are evil."

Posted by: Paul Callahan | Oct 7, 2004 3:30:28 PM

Vaughn, it is true that embryonic stem cell research in 2004 involves only so-called surplus embryos from IVF. That's not the long-term plan, however. ACT, for example, is working hard to clone humans for research purposes--they will create a human embryo to destroy it for research purposes.

Where I live there's been a great focus on becoming a center for "life sciences." I think that's true almost everywhere, which tells you a bit about our chances. (We're not a big city, and we don't have beaches, mountains, or great weather, so our chances aren't particularly good.) The focus here is on making sure that so-called therapeutic cloning isn't made illegal in the state, because such cloning is needed for the embryonic stem cell research efforts planned by a local foundation.

They've actually had some success preventing a ban on such cloning. The Republican candidate for governor, a typically principled sort, insists that he has no problem with clone-to-kill efforts, because the clone isn't a human being. The chamber of commerce types were very pleased--they've truly got high hopes.

Posted by: Thomas | Oct 7, 2004 3:40:22 PM

Evangelicals opposed to stem cell research have rarely (as far as I know) spoken out against fertility treatments.

Most anti-abortion groups are against them, if you look, but don't talk a lot about it because they draw their financial backing largely from middle- to upper-class family-oriented, married couples, who are the same people that probably are the main market for IVF.

That same group is also probably the least likely to seek abortion for themselves.

The honest people with a pro-life ideology in the leadership of these organization, or that make up a large portion of their activist base, are against IVF -- when aware of what it entails -- but the base of their financial support has a lot of overlap with the primary market for IVF.

Posted by: cmdicely | Oct 7, 2004 4:04:19 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.