Michael Fumento has a nice article here making a persuasive case that non-embryonic stem cells have greater proven capacity to cure illness than embryonic stem cells. Now, I am no biologist, and I am quite willing to believe that a proponent of embryonic stem cell research could write an opposing article muddying the water beyond my ability to clarify it. (Although his argument that the New York Times, as part of its anti-Bush agenda, is simply lying about the science is probably irrefutable.) Not least, they could argue that it is unfair to restrict research into embryonic stem cells and then point to the lack of research success as vindication. (Please, no comments about how only federal funding was restricted, because (a) I know that and (b) I don't care.)
But let's accept for the moment that non-embryonic stem cells can be teased into doing all the things that embryonic stem cells might be able to do: they can be made to replicate endlessly in a laboratory and they can become any kind of cell. Let's also accept that the resistance to using embryonic stem cells is irrational, as, in fact, it is, and that it is a minority opinion, as it might be. In a democracy, to what extent should we defer to the deeply held irrational beliefs of a substantial minority?
When it comes to stem cells, I share the irrational belief: I think that the inherent dignity of the human being is incompatible with taking stem cells from embryos for either research or treatment. So, I would like the majority to defer to my deeply held irrational belief and, if there really is no obvious benefit from embryonic stem cells, would be insulted if the majority didn't defer to my irrationality. It's my government, too, and it really shouldn't be doing things that I strongly disapprove of -- especially if there's no obvious benefit. But what about issues in which I'm part of the rational majority?
That's a harder question, in no small part because it's depressingly difficult to come up with an issue in which I am both part of the majority and the majority is rational. The only such issue that comes to mind is the Iraqi war. The decision to go to war was rational and popular. The anti-war position strongly believed that going to war was not something their government should do. To what extent was I willing to defer to that belief? I was perfectly willing to hear them out, to treat their view with respect (it was an eminently respectable view, even though wrong) and to let them try to make their case. On the other hand, I wasn't willing to not go to war.
There's also the controversy over teaching Intelligent Design. ID is not rational and I don't believe in it, although I might be in the minority. The smart political position seems to be to say that one personally believes in evolution, but that we should "teach the controversy." I'm fine with teaching the controversy, but it shouldn't be taught in Biology Class because it is not a Biology controversy. On the other hand, if the irrational majority doesn't want evolution taught in their schools, that's perfectly fine with me albeit a different question entirely.
My inchoate sense here is that we owe cheerful, ungrudging respect to the deeply held irrational beliefs of our fellow citizens. By cheerful and ungrudging, I mean something more than just the cold cost/benefit decision to defer to the irrational beliefs of others in return for their deference to my irrational beliefs. I mean something more than the realization that I could be wrong and that prudence thus requires that I not trash an idea I might later be forced to accept. I mean, I suppose, that the mere fact that an idea is imbued with importance by a fellow citizen means that I should give it due deference. How much deference is due? As much as I can spare while not sacrificing anything I care about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Here we see the problem with a large and intrusive government. The libertarian view is to avoid such problems as much as possible by not havinga situation where the citizenry must all make the same decision.
For instance, I understand your point about inherent dignity, but wouldn't that apply just as well to funeral rites? Should those be regulated for reasons other than public health?
Libertarianism? What rubbish. Why are you wasting my time with that mess?
No, no, I kid. I kid because I care.
Ha, kidding again.
But seriously ...
I agree that libertarianism, or what we might quaintly call "freedom" should be the default position. The government's default position should be not to interfere, and not just because of the inherent dignity of human beings but also because that actually works better.
On the other hand, I'm not sure which funeral rites you have in mind. On the one hand, I have believed that funeral homes were over-regulated and that the regulation was, as is so often the case, kept in place as a form of industry sponsored cartelization. I'd also be a little surprised if the original regulation hadn't been prompted by some type of invidious religious or racial discrimination.
On the other hand, the dealings between the family and the funeral industry are archetypal for one type of regulation. You not only have bereavement and shock, but also a repeat player seller dealing with a once or twice in a lifetime buyer. That's a situation just ripe for abuse.
A few years ago I was primarily responsible for planning a funeral. I was dealing with a very respectable, long-established funeral home and (in a funeral the deceased himself had arranged years before) had a nice template as to what he thought appropriate. Nevertheless, the price was shockingly high. Now, I'm sure that part of that was due to regulation: "The law requires this platinum mesh be installed in order to prevent dangerous heavy metals from leaching into the water table." But it was clear to me at the time that all they had to do was tell me that something was ritually required or expected and I would tick that box.
Have I ever mentioned my third hand? It pushes but it doesn't pop.
How much deference is due? As much as I can spare while not sacrificing anything I care about.
That sounds about right to me.
David:
Herein lies the crux of the problem, as well as all its many hands:
Let's also accept that the resistance to using embryonic stem cells is irrational, as, in fact, it is, and that it is a minority opinion, as it might be. In a democracy, to what extent should we defer to the deeply held irrational beliefs of a substantial minority?
Absent Paul Harvey's Page Two, the irrationality of resistance, the plurality of opinion, and the degree to which both are a matter of belief are completely unknown.
Hypothetical: tomorrow someone discovers that embryonic stem cells, and nothing else known will stop not only stop diabetes in its tracks, but restore all of Langerhan's islets to their original glory.
Only then can one even approach the questions of rationality, plurality, or measure the gap between belief an knowledge.
If you came into possession of such knowledge, would you be so certain that the inherent dignity of the human being is incompatible with taking stem cells from embryos for either research or treatment, if that meant the inherent dignity of the human being is also completely compatible with diabetes' depredations, now suddenly avoidable?
My inchoate sense here is that we owe cheerful, ungrudging respect to the deeply held irrational beliefs of our fellow citizens.
Mine, too.
Unfortunately, the dividing line between that and mere censorship would seem to require a superhuman surveyor to plot with any fidelity.
As much as I can spare while not sacrificing anything I care about.
That sounds about right to me also. Trouble is, it probably sounds about right to, say, Hillary Clinton as well. It's just that, you know, some people care so much more than others that they can spare so much less.
[S]ome people care so much more than others that they can spare so much less.
LOL
Good one.
Post a Comment