PHIL242: MEDICAL ETHICS SUM2014, M-F, 9:40-10:40, SAV 156 INSTRUCTOR: BENJAMIN HOLE OFFICE HOURS: M-F, 10:40-11  EMAIL: BVHOLE@UW.EDU

Agenda Clicker Quiz Finish Discussing Brock Leon Kass, “The Wisdom of Repugnance” Please set your Turning Technology Clicker to channel 41 Press “Ch”, then “41”, then “Ch”

Which of the following is/are (an) example(S) of Brock’s “non Person-affecting principle”? M “Those individuals responsible for a child’s, or other dependent person’s, welfare are morally required not to let it suffer a serious harm or handicap that they could have prevented without imposing substantial burdens or costs on themselves or others.” N “Individuals are morally required not to let any possible child or other dependent person for whose welfare they are responsible experience serious suffering or limited opportunity if they can act so that, without imposing substantial burdens or costs on themselves or others, any alternative possible child or other dependent person for whose welfare they would be responsible will not experience serious suffering or limited opportunity.” N’ “It is morally good to act in a way that results in less suffering and less limited opportunity in the world B&C

Kass describes the “Wisdom of repugnance” as: intense revulsion that reveals internally logical inconsistencies about the deepest commitments of the person experiencing such revulsion humanity’s natural tendency to act in accordance with divine revelation and against scientific intervention the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power to fully articulate it A formal argument against the morality of unnatural biomedical interventions

Kass attributes to “feminism and the gay rights movement”: The perspective of “cloning in the context of rights” The popular view “that natural heterosexual difference and its preeminence is a cultural construction” “serious issues of identity and individuality.”

“The Non-Identity Problem & genetic Harms – the Case of Wrongful Handicaps” Dan Brock

Non-Identity Problem Barbara wronged Billy If Barbara wronged Billy, the only way she could have done it was by harming him. The only way she could have harmed him is by making him worse off than he would have been otherwise. Barbara did not make Billy worse off than he would have been otherwise.

Non Person-Affecting Principles “Individuals are morally required not to let any possible child or other dependent person for whose welfare they are responsible experience serious suffering or limited opportunity if they can act so that, without imposing substantial burdens or costs on themselves or others, any alternative possible child or other dependent person for whose welfare they would be responsible will not experience serious suffering or limited opportunity.” N’ “It is morally good to act in a way that results in less suffering and less limited opportunity in the world.” Identifies no specific person Does not depend on “being worse off otherwise” for the very same person It is “worse off” than another possible person.

Non Person-Affecting Principles Objection Response “fails to identify the victim of the harm done” Accept the non-identity problem… Brock: “appeal to any person-affecting moral principles in cases of wrongful handicap … will mischaracterize the wrong done… Non person-affecting principles are correct for wrongful handicap cases because the non-identity problem at the heart of those cases makes the wrong that is done not done to the child and the handicap not a loss that is suffered by anyone.”

A non person-affecting principle is the best way to address the “wrongful handicap Case” Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Which claim can you reject? Barbara wronged Billy If Barbara wronged Billy, the only way she could have done it was by harming him. The only way she could have harmed him is by making him worse off than he would have been otherwise. Barbara did not make Billy worse off than he would have been otherwise.

“The Wisdom of Repugnance” Leon Kass

Leon Kass Writing in response to Dolly Led George W. Bush’s The President's Council on Bioethics Replaced Clinton’s National Bioethics Advisory Commission

Leon Kass Not an academic philosopher (and does not always identify as a bioethicist) Physician, public intellectual, policy, educator Opponent of: abortion, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, many biomedical enhancements (like life extension), and so on. Common argument: X is repugnant Repugnance is evidence of unnaturalness Unnaturalness is wrong Therefore X is wrong. First, we will discuss unnaturalness, then we will discuss repugnance.

The Wisdom of Repugnance unnaturalness Cloning is repugnant Repugnance is evidence of unnaturalness The wisdom of repugnance: “the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power to fully articulate it.” Therefore cloning is unnatural. NLT: “An action is right if and only if (and because) in performing the action one does not directly violate any of the basic values”:​ ​ Human Life​ Human Procreation (which includes raising children)​ Human Knowledge​ Human Sociability

The Wisdom of Repugnance unnaturalness Cloning is repugnant Repugnance is evidence of unnaturalness The wisdom of repugnance: “the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power to fully articulate it.” Therefore cloning is unnatural. If X is unnatural (in violating NLT values), then X is wrong. X is unnatural Therefore, X is wrong. X: cloning, abortion, homosexuality, life extension, etc.

Unnatural? A preference for naturalness used to be uncontroversial, but no longer, with cultural chances (like gay rights, feminism, science, bioethics, and popular culture). Cloning is unnatural (-- describes cloning technology) THE PROFUNDITY OF SEX “if sex has no intrinsic connection to generating babies, babies have no necessary connection to … the inherent procreative teleology of sex.” 1. If cloning violates NLT values, then X cloning wrong. 2. Cloning violates NLT values 3. Therefore, X is wrong. Human Life​ Human Procreation (which includes raising children)​ Human Knowledge​ Human Sociability

The Wisdom of Repugnance Repugnance argument Cloning is repugnant Repugnance is evidence of unnaturalness The wisdom of repugnance: “the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power to fully articulate it.” Therefore cloning is unnatural.

The Wisdom of Repugnance Repugnance argument Cloning is repugnant Repugnance is evidence of unnaturalness The wisdom of repugnance: “the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power to fully articulate it.” Therefore cloning is unnatural. Harris: “there is no necessary connection between phenomena, attitudes, or actions that make us uneasy, or even those that disgust us, and those phenomena, attitudes, and actions that there are good reasons for judging unethical. Nor does it follow that those things we are confident are unethical must be prohibited by legislation or regulation.” Clones, Genes, and Immortality: Ethics and the Genetic Revolution

The Repugnance argument Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree