Objectives

In reading this chapter you will:

• consider why we might believe we have duties to the environment;

• reflect on the source of these duties;

• consider how the different moral theories would view duties to the environment;

• examine the nature of these duties;

• examine the threat of climate change and the duties it imposes;

• reflect on climate-change scepticism;

• reflect on the threat of mass species extinction.

There are broadly three positions we might take on our duties to the environment:

1. Anthropocentrism: we have direct duties to ourselves; everything else is only ofinstrumental value;

2. Biocentrism: we have direct duties to ourselves and to (certain) other living things;the non-living environment is only of instrumental value;

3. Ecocentrism: we have direct duties to ourselves, other living things and thenon-living environment.

Plenty of people would add to or cross-cut these distinctions. But let’s consider eachin turn.

Anthropocentrism

Human beings, like other living things, have always used nature as a resource. Somethink that until the Industrial Revolution we acted in harmony with nature, but thatsince then our activities have thrown nature comprehensively out of balance. Thelatter part of this claim, at least, seems justified if we believe those who say ouractivities are implicated in climate change and in the sixth great extinction ofplanetary history. We shall discuss both below.

Objectives

In reading this chapter you will:

• learn about Henrietta Lacks and her singular contribution to science;

• reflect on whether Lacks had a moral right to share in the profits generated by her cells;

• consider John Moore and the need for fully informed consent;

• reflect on the notion of informed consent for specific and commercial uses of tissue;

• examine a UK scandal to reflect further on consent to specific uses of tissue;

• consider the notions of biopiracy and bioprospecting in the context of the Biodiversity Convention;

• learn about the recent history of patenting DNA and other biological resources;

• reflect on whether the ‘stuff of life’ should be patentable at all.

In the eighteenth century surgeons were trained by the Company of Barber Surgeonswho were alone allowed legal access to the corpses of criminals executed by the state.The many private schools of anatomy made do with the services of grave-robbers orthose, like Burke and Hare, who murdered their victims to provide fresh corpses.

The authorities turned a blind eye to the activities of the grave-robbers (though notthe murderers) because of their service to society. In those days, anyway, the notion of‘informed’, ‘genuine’ or ‘appropriate’ consent was unknown.

Objectives

In reading this chapter you will:

• distinguish reproductive and therapeutic cloning;

• consider arguments for and against therapeutic cloning;

• learn more about validity and the analysis of argument;

• start to apply the moral theories outlined in Chapter 4;

• consider whether it is always wrong to kill one of us;

• reflect on the moral status of the embryo;

• reflect on the difference between therapeutic cloning and abortion.

Clones get bad press. From the re-creation of Hitler in The Boys from Brazil to the ‘spare part’ clones of Kazuo Ishiguru’s Never Let Me Go, no one has a good word to sayfor them. The idea of cloning triggers, for most people, a visceral recoil (a version ofthe ‘boo’ or ‘yuk’ response discussed in Chapter 6).

In somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) the nucleus from a somatic cell (anordinary body cell) of an organism is inserted into the de-nucleated egg of another(female) member of the same species (or even that of another species as withchimera), and triggered into developing as an embryo. Clones can also be producedby ‘twinning’, by splitting apart an embryo. If done early enough each clump of cells willdevelop into a separate individual. This happens naturally to produce identical twins.In this chapter and the next we shall be discussing only clones produced by SCNT.

The possibility of using this process on mammals generates the possibility ofcreating, from every cell of a human adult, a baby genetically identical to that adult.From the hair follicle you left in your hairbrush this morning it would be possible, inprinciple, to create many babies, each genetically identical to you.

Objectives

In reading this chapter you will:

• learn about the international regulations governing experiments involving human subjects;

• examine the cultural difficulties involved in obtaining ‘informed consent’;

• reflect on whether the standard of care for subjects during clinical trials should relate to international or local standards;

• reflect on the nature of intellectual property, and in particular patents;

• examine the tension between the protection of intellectual property and public health in the developing world;

• learn about the serious shortage of human organs and tissue, for transplantation and research;

• consider the black market in human organs and tissue, and especially the trade between the rich in the developed world and the poor in the developing world;

• ask yourself whether the trade in human organs and tissue should be legalised.

There are many things we could learn if we could freely experiment on humanbeings. Imagine the good that could be done with the knowledge that we acquired.But unless we think the end justifies any means whatsoever it is unacceptable toconduct experiments on human beings except in accordance with the strictest ethicalstandards.

Unfortunately we know that an action’s being morally unacceptable does not preventits being performed. In the case of experimentation on human beings the Nazi doctorsJosef Mengele, Herta Oberhauser and Carl Clauberg cared not a jot for morality.Mengele conducted experiments without anaesthetic on twins as young as five. Inpursuit of a better understanding of the wounds German soldiers were sustainingOberhauser deliberately inflicted wounds on conscious subjects, then rubbed wood, sawdust, rusty nails, dirt and slivers of glass into them. Clauberg’s interest was inreproduction. He stood his ‘patients’ between two X-ray machines aimed at theirsexual organs. The radiation burns they received rendered them unfit for work so theywere gassed.

Objectives

In reading this chapter you will:

• learn about the different techniques of assisted reproduction;

• distinguish legal from moral rights;

• reflect on the ‘right’ to found a family;

• distinguish positive and negative duties;

• reflect on the hard financial and moral decisions governments must make;

• reflect on the differences between adoption and assisted reproductive technology (ART);

• reflect on the fairness of ‘postcode’ lotteries.

One of the major motivations of biotechnology has been the desire to learn how tohelp the sub-fertile have children. Over the 30-odd years since the birth of LouiseBrown, the world’s first test tube baby, huge strides have been made in the technologyof assisted reproduction (ART). Many couples, thanks to biotechnology, have beenable to have a family they wouldn’t otherwise have had.

Objectives

In reading this chapter you will:

• consider whether it is reasonable to be fearful of official attempts to collect, store and use bio-information;

• reflect on the desirability of universal databases;

• reflect on whether personalised medicine is desirable;

• wonder whether the result of widespread genome testing would lead to discrimination in employment, healthcare and/or insurance;

• consider the impact of discovering that women, or black people, have certain genetic tendencies;

• reflect on the practicality of supposing we could keep bio-information private.

If you are not an identical twin, you will be distinguished from everyone else by 1%your DNA. If there is a match between your DNA and a sample of DNA the source ofwhich is unknown, you can be conclusively identified as the source of that sampledespite sharing 99% of your DNAwith every human being on the planet (and 98% of itwith chimpanzees, and 60% with bananas). Your genome contains 3,000,000,000 basepairs. It differs from that of any other person, therefore, in about 6,000,000 locations.

Your looks, your behavioural traits, your personality, your responses to drugs,foods and allergens are all a function of your unique set of genes, and the uniqueenvironment in which you grew up.

Objectives

In reading this chapter you will:

• reflect on the metaphysics and epistemology of morality;

• learn about Aristotle and virtue ethics;

• reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of virtue ethics;

• acquire an understanding of Immanuel Kant and deontology;

• reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of deontology;

• reflect on John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism;

• reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of utilitarianism;

• consider how to balance the three theories against each other in approaching moral dilemmas.

If we were to consider every ethical theory, this book would be too long. Instead weshall consider the three theories that command most followers. These are:

1. Virtue Theory: according to which the right action is the action that would beperformed by a virtuous person.

2. Deontology: according to which the right action is the action that is performedout of duty (or ‘reverence for the moral law’).

3. Utilitarianism: according to which the right action is the one that wouldproduce the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Each of these theories postulates an account of the metaphysics of morality (whatmakes an action morally right or wrong) and the epistemology of morality (anaccount of how we know an action is morally right or wrong).

As you read about these theories and as, throughout the book, you apply themto specificproblems, you will probably find yourself drawn to first one, then the other. Each theory hasstrengths and weaknesses whichmust be balanced against each other aswe decide how to act.

We shall start by considering the theory of greatest longevity, the theory with itsorigins in the writings of Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers of all time.

Objectives

In reading this final chapter you will be:

• reflecting on what you have read in this book;

• speculating on how social decisions may affect the future;

• thinking creatively about participative democracy.

You might be reading this before you read anything else. Well, why not? It is often agood way to discover whether you are going to enjoy a book. Or you might be readingit having worked your way through the rest of the book. If so, in reading this finalchapter you will be pulling together everything you have read, and reflecting on howit might be of benefit, not just to you but to society as a whole.

We are going to engage in some speculation. In this book we have considered manycontroversial issues. As we saw in Chapter 3, where we discussed ethics in the contextof society, when an issue is controversial – when equally rational people can come todifferent conclusions – governments must make hard decisions. The decisions theymake will push society in one direction or another. If we are lucky enough to live in ademocratic society we can, by participating in the decision-making process, affectthese decisions.

Objectives

In reading this chapter you will:

• ask whether animals are sentient and/or rational;

• consider whether deontologists would impose moral constraints on our use of animals;

• reflect on whether animals must be counted in the utilitarian calculus;

• consider whether animals have rights and if so what sort of rights they have;

• ask whether speciesism is comparable to racism and sexism;

• reflect on whether animals are good experimental models for human beings;

• reflect on how the moral status of animals impacts on our use of them for research purposes;

• consider how animal rights activism affects the public perception of the use of animals in scientific research.

Factual information: The use of mice for research in the UK

From the 1970s until the 2000s there was a steady decline in the use of animals inresearch, possibly due to the activities of animal rights activists. The boom in geneticresearch reversed this decline.

Mice are particularly valuable for research because 99% of their 30,000 genes havedirect counterparts in the human genome.

By 2003 there were already 3,000 GM strains of mice. It has been predicted therewill be 300,000 by 2020. Hundreds of mice are needed to produce each, though mostof the mice are killed because they do not develop the needed mutation.

In the UK it is estimated that several million mice are used annually in geneticresearch. Some have suggested that mice are now little more than ‘catalogue entries’like paperclips or biros to be routinely ordered for the proper functioning of theinstitution.

Objectives

In reading this chapter you will:

• consider whether or not something that is unnatural is also immoral;

• reflect on the arguments for and against this claim;

• consider whether morality is a matter of emotion or feeling rather than reason;

• reflect on the reasons for and against thinking that our intuitions are a good guide to morality;

• consider why many people think that it is immoral to take risks;

• reflect on the extent to which it is immoral to take risks;

• reflect on the common belief that morality is all a matter of opinion;

• consider the extent to which morality is a matter of opinion.

In this section we shall consider those arguments that we will come across again andagain as we work through this book. There are four such arguments: (i) it’s notnatural; (ii) it’s disgusting; (iii) it’s too risky; and (iv) it’s a matter of opinion. Thesegeneral arguments are intuitively attractive, they often underpin discussions aboutethics in the media and they almost certainly feature in your own ethical thinking. Inreading this part of the introduction you may find yourself questioning some of thethings you believe to be obviously true. Questioning such assumptions is an import-ant part of thinking critically.

Objectives

In reading this chapter you will:

• learn to distinguish ethical issues from social issues;

• reflect on the requirements for the smooth running of society;

• consider the nature of social decision-making;

• learn to distinguish the moral and the legal;

• consider the principles that govern just societies;

• briefly consider the nature of political authority.

In thinking ethically we are trying to decide which actions are right and wrong, whichactions we should or shouldn’t perform. But no man is an island, and the decisions wemake about howtoactmust bemade inthe context of the lawsof the land in which we live.Some of themost important ethical decisions, therefore, are not primarily decisions abouthowindividuals should or shouldn’t act, but rather decisions about whether a given action:

• should or shouldn’t be illegal

Nearly every country in the world has made it illegal to clone a human being forreproductive purposes. Even if an individual believes that human cloning is morallyacceptable, therefore, he cannot rationally clone a human being without taking intoaccount the fact it is illegal and that the state will punish him if it discovers what he isdoing. (We shall be considering reproductive cloning in Chapter 8.)

• should or shouldn’t be regulated by law

In Britain and in some US states (e.g. Rhode Island, California and New Jersey) it islegal to clone a human being as far as the blastocyst stage of embryo development forthe purposes of research (so-called ‘therapeutic’ cloning). Anyone wanting to clone ahuman being for such purposes, however, must jump through the myriad hoops bywhich such activities are regulated by the law. They will, for example, in the UK, needa licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), whosejob it is to subject requests for licences to close examination, then they will need to obey the various regulations governing the activity itself, then finally they will have todestroy the clone by the 14th day. (We shall be considering therapeutic cloning inChapter 7.)

Objectives

In reading this chapter you will:

• reflect on the claims of those who promise a significant increase in longevity;

• consider whether you would like to live for 1000 (or even 150) years;

• examine the social consequences of everyone's having the choice of living much longer;

• examine the moral consequences of a significant increase in lifespan;

• consider whether a normal lifespan is part of what makes us human;

• ask yourself whether normal humans and ‘immortal’ humans could belong to the same species.

Having considered the ethical and social issues generated by biotechnology at thebeginning of life, we shall now turn to the issues that arise at the end of life. In thischapter we shall consider the issues generated by the possibility of significantlyextending our lives.

The possibility of ‘eternal’ life

If someone were to offer you the gift of eternal life, would you cry ‘let me at it!’ orwould you be suspicious?

It wouldn’t be unreasonable to be suspicious. Since the beginning of time peoplehave sought the fountain of youth, and so far all have been disappointed. Quite afew scientists, however, believe the gift of all-but-eternal life is within our grasp notthrough magical potions but through genetic know-how.

The bio-gerontologist Aubrey de Grey of Cambridge University believes we are onthe very verge of conquering death.He believes the first ‘immortal’ might already be 60.5Once we conquer death, according to de Grey, we will live on until, inevitably, we have anaccident. He calculates (by extrapolating from teenage lifespans and accident ratesgenerally) that the average lifespan will then be 1,000 plus. Not quite immortality,but close. Perhaps if you were very risk-adverse you could achieve the real thing.