How_Do_We_Develop_Our_Ethical_Positions_on_Eugenic_Actions

Alexander Washburn How do we develop our ethical positions on eugenic actions' Just over a century and a half ago Charles Darwin published his timeless book The Origin of Species in which he discussed his theory of natural selection and a paradigm of hereditary progress known as evolution. Since his theories were published much controversy has arose over their validity and application. One application that has emerged is the concept of eugenics. Eugenics is defined as “The study of methods of improving the quality of the human race, especially by selective breeding” (Collins). Eugenics application consists of allowing human intellect, rather than the environmental forces of natural selection, to guide the course of human evolution. In the past eugenics applications have been bias toward ethnicity as desirable traits and have left the field of study a taboo. Now with the study of genetics and the completion of the human genome project, forms of potentially helpful medical research and treatment, both to the individual and the community, are sometimes viewed as unethical. If we as a species wish to use our knowledge to advance ourselves forward we need to critically evaluate the ethical boundaries of eugenic applications now possible with emerging technologies. An analysis is needed of how we develop our ethical positions on eugenic actions. Many ethical conflicts occur over eugenics. A simple way to understand some of the ethical issues regarding eugenics is to look at specific applications. Pregnancy termination based upon genetics screening, predictive genetic screening for hereditary health problems, DNA databases, euthanasia, and forced sterilization are some of the applications of eugenics at have raised ethical questions. Each of these applications hold lucrative benefits of a eliminating genetic diseases, significantly reducing medical expenses, reducing crime, improving productivity, and accelerating evolution respectively. As alluring as the benefits are, they fall Washburn 2 outside the reach of realization due to ethical limitations. In our gut we often feel that these eugenic applications are immoral without analyzing this feeling's origin or considering the benefits. How do these gut feelings emerge and influence our conclusions about eugenic actions' A sociologist named Dr. Jonathan Haidt has done substantial research on moral reasoning and developed a model for how we arrive at a moral decision. Dr. Haidt calls his moral reasoning model the Social Intuitionist Model (SIM) which postulates a quite different reasoning system then previous rational models. Dr. Haidt writes “The central claim of the social intuitionist model is that moral judgment is caused by quick moral intuitions and is followed (when needed) by slow, ex post facto moral reasoning” (Haidt 817). Dr. Haidt's claim is quite revolutionary because his social intuitionist model stresses the importance of intuitive reasoning and that rational reasoning comes after when prompted. Rational reasoning is not the source of one's moral reasoning but comes after when an individual's stance is questioned. The individual's stance is already established intuitively and rational reasoning simply verbally justifies the intuitive reasoning but does not affect it. Haidt elaborates by stating “...intuition occurs quickly, effortlessly and automatically, such that the outcome but not the process is accessible to consciousness, whereas reasoning occurs more slowly, requires some effort, and involves at least some step that are accessible to consciousness” (Haidt 818). He explains that intuitive reasoning is desirable in many cases because it is effortless and a conclusion is arrived at with no conscious effort. The two forms of reasoning are separated by their relation to consciousness; distinctly the effort exerted and availability of reasoning. According to Haidt's SIM our moral stance is arrived at by intuitive reasoning, which is quick and effortless, and defended by rational reasoning when questioned. In 2009 Paul van der Zande, a sociologist from the Netherlands, conducted a study Washburn 3 identifying moral reasoning in genetic education. His study was designed to determine to what degree moral reasoning was addressed in education and how this affected student's views on certain applications of genetics technology, chiefly genetic testing and screening. When he published his study van Dr. Zande asks “Do the emotions that established an intuition in the past still mirror their present values'” (van der Zande 3) Van der Zande reference to the past can be explained by a Haidt's SIM. Haidt also makes clear that “feeling and thought are to some extent separate systems with separate biological bases” (Haidt 819). His statement reflects the fact that feeling, emotion and empathy come from one part of the brain while logical reasoning and rationalization comes from a distinctly different part of the brain. Haidt also explains in an interview with the New York Times that “We have a complex animal mind that only recently evolved language and language-based reasoning. No way was control of the organism going to be handed over to this novel faculty” (1). Haidt very simply put that the emotional region of the brain is theorized to have developed much earlier in our evolution then the rational region. A simple example would be to look at the behavior of a rabbit. Rabbits live by running around scavenging for food to nibble on, running from danger, and looking for places to sleep. These tendencies are instinctual to the rabbit. They come effortlessly and without conscious effort. This is the rabbit's intuitive reasoning and it is the only reasoning skill a rabbit possesses. It alone allows the rabbit to survive based a very complex system of stimuli and intuitive responses. In a similar fashion to the rabbit; humans relied on intuitive reasoning to survive before we evolved language based reasoning skills. Because the emotional region of the brain's ability to make effortless intuitive decisions is a contributing factor to human survivability it was a integral part of our evolution and our current state. Van der Zande's question regarding the emotions that established an intuition in the past still mirroring their present values is quite engaging. It Washburn 4 questions whether the intuitive reasoning we evolved in the past is accurately responds to the present, particularly to genetic technology. During Van der Zande's study the high school students gave predominately anit-eugenic statements. Here Van der Zande gives an example of student responses: "Not only do I know something about Downs children, but it would be my child! I will not let it be taken away; it would be my child" (van der Zande 5). This student, like the majority in the study, responded with anti-eugenic attitudes. Van der Zande comments on this quote: “other strong motive was: 'I will not let it be taken away; it would be my child.' A consideration she did not explain further, as for her it did not need any further explanation. This was labeled intuitive reasoning...” (van der Zande 5). When concluding the study Zande stated that “all students used emotive and intuitive reasoning as well as rationalistic reasoning, although they were not aware of this.” Van der Zande statement shows concern for the lack of awareness as to how one creates his decisions. Haidt states that “the roots of human intelligence, rationality and ethical sophistication should not be sought in our ability to search for and evaluate evidence in an open and unbiased way” (821). Haidt statement is simpler then it may seem; that human intelligence and ethics stem not from rational reasoning but from the intuitive reasoning region of the brain that has been honed by years of evolution. Haidt's statement and Van der Zande's study both reveal how the student's ethics stemmed from intuitive reasoning. Isaac Rabino, a professor at Empire State College, conducted a different survey in 2003. Rabino sent a questionnaire to over 1200 scientists who were members of the American Society of Human Genetics. In his survey Ranino assessed the attitudes of the scientists as to their views on genetic testing and screening. Based on his survey results, Rabino informs us of those working more then ten years in the field of genetics 85% agree with pregnancy termination if Washburn 5 likelihood of severe retardation, 64% agree if likelihood of severe childhood disease, and 39% agree if likelihood of mild retardation (Rabino 395). Rabino's survey shows that the majority of scientists working in the field of genetics agree in genetic screening for genetic defects. The view of genetic scientists towards genetic screening is quite different from that of Van der Zande's survey of students in secondary education. Rabino's study also shows of those working more then ten years in the field of genetics that 56% agree with precautionary surgery (Rabino 394). Compare this to the average response of Van der Zande's survey when asked about preventative mastectomy “When you get it, you can always try to operate then. To do it up front, I think is a bit exaggerated” (Van der Zande 5). Van der Zande shows that on average the students do not agree preventative surgery. Between Rabino and Van der Zande's surveys we can see that those working in the field of genetics have quite different moral reasoning on genetic testing and screening then those learning about the field in secondary education even though both groups have the same moral reasoning system according to Haidts SIM. To discover how these groups have diverging conclusions from moral reasoning we will have to look to the past. Van der Zande shows us that “there are increasing indications that we make our moral decisions based on intuition and emotion. We use our arguments only to justify our position after this position in taken intuitively” (Van der Zande 1). Van der Zande's proposition, like Haidt's SIM, is quite revealing and might lead to a way of overcoming ethical barriers concerning eugenic action. Our moral decisions are based on our impulsive emotive and intuitive responses. Our logical arguments form in accordance after our decision has been made in our mind. According to Haidt's SIM and van der Zande's research all humans for decisions in this manner. This insight is quite useful when trying to understand how other could act in ways that seem parallel to human social intuitive reasoning. In regards to the holocaust Geoffrey Scarre, a Washburn 6 philosopher studying the moral phenomenology of the Third Reich, had this to say “If the Nazis had a real belief that the Jews posed a threat to Germany, then their persecution of the Jews takes on aspects of a (tragically misguided) program of self defense” (429). Scarre's statement doesn't attempt to justify the Nazi's actions but rather help us understand the root of their moral reasoning. Because the German population viewed the Jewish population as a threat from years of propaganda their reasoning is not based in logic or emotional care-based reasoning, but from an intuitive reasoning. The German population and the Nazi regime formed their “logical” reasoning for their persecution after this stance was clearly rooted in their intuitive response. This shows a clear but grim example of how the emotional and intuitive reasoning that forms our modern ethics were subverted to allow eugenic action. The moral phenomenology of the Third Reich is very important to understand because the aftermath of Nazi actions changed the ethical boundaries of eugenics for the duration of the twentieth century. Many countries, including the United States, had national eugenic programs implemented until the Nazi regime called into question the validity of the field of science. Scarre also addresses this issue by stating “Himmler's basic problem may have been not that his morality was bad but that his relevant factual beliefs were false” (Scarre 429). Scarre make a very necessary distinction when considering how people make moral decisions. Scarre illustrates that Himmer's beliefs and actions came intuitively when presented with information and Himmler did not reflect on the validity of these beliefs and actions or their origins. During the height of the Third Reich, Himmler found himself in the position of leading the S.S. in hunting down and exterminating the Jewish population. There is a troubling lack of self-inquiry on Himmler's part as to how he arrived in such a position. Van der Zande shared this concern when conducting his survey of genetics education. The Washburn 7 primary goal of his survey was to determine the extent, if any of moral reflection in genetics education. Van der Zande explains “Due to reflection on this ex-post facto reasoning, people may be capable of changing their intuitions either through private reflection, for instance initiated through role play, or through social persuasion, when they get feedback from people they respect” (Van der Zande 3). Van der Zande's statement explains that while our intuitive reasoning is effortless and unconscious our conscious mind can, through a variety of ways, alter our intuitive reasoning response. Haidt's SIM also addresses moral reflection, though its basis is intuitive reasoning, he acknowledges that the language based reasoning skills we posses can affect of intuitions. Haidt states “A person comes to see an issue or dilemma from more than one side and thereby experiences multiple competing intuitions. The final judgment may be determined either by going with the strongest intuition or by allowing reason to choose among the alternatives on the basis of the conscious application of a rule or principle” (Haidt 819). Haidt goes on to remark “Ever since Plato wrote his Dialogues, philosophers have recognized that moral reasoning naturally occurs in a social setting, between people who can challenge each other's arguments and trigger new intuitions” (Haidt 820). Haidt illustrates how when multiple intuitions compete our default intuitive reasoning can change. These competing intuitions can stem form a debate amongst peers and also from private reflection on a moral dilemma. In both cases exposure to new competing intuitions can cause a changing in intuitive reasoning. In the case of Himmler and the Third Reich a lack of moral reflection lead to what would be considered unethical eugenic actions. In Van der Zande study he reports an overall antieugenic response when presenting students with the ethical issues of genetic testing and screening. In Rabino's survey of those working in the genetics field the majority of those surveyed supported eugenic actions such as genetic screening and testing. Van der Zande's Washburn 8 survey shows us the extent to which moral reflection is incorporated into genetics education. Van der Zande concludes “Teachers did not report planned moral reflection, but spontaneous discussions with moral dimensions” (Van der Zande 7). Van der Zande goes on to say “To the best of our knowledge, this kind of reflection on moral reasoning is not currently being practiced in secondary education” (Van der Zande 8). Van der Zande's study quite conclusively expresses a lack of moral reflection in genetics education. Consider back to Rabino's survey of those working in the genetics field. From his survey Rabino states “The majority of respondents accept the idea of therapeutic abortion in response to test results indicative of serious disease or disorder but find it ethically unacceptable to terminate a healthy fetus on the basis of discovered traits or characteristics deemed more or less desirable” (Rabino 396). All the individuals Rabino surveyed have worked in the field of genetics for more then ten years. These individuals are not only more familiar with the practical applications of the field but also have been exposed to the moral dilemmas of the field for at least ten years. Dr. Haidt's explains “People are capable of engaging in private moral reasoning, and many people can point to times in their life when the changed their minds on a moral issue just from mulling the matter over by themselves” (Haidt 819). Dr. Haidt's statement tells us that our subconscious intuitive reasoning response can change given enough time to consciously reflect on it. The scientists from Rabino's study have at least ten years of moral reflection, from debates with colleagues to internal personal reflection, represented in their responses. The extreme difference in the responses from secondary education students and genetic scientists to the same moral dilemmas can be directly attributed to the amount of moral reflection the individual has been exposed to. From the contrasting studies conducted by Van der Zande and Rabino it is clear how vital moral reflection is on forming our opinions on ethics of eugenic actions. When concluding his Washburn 9 study Van der Zande states “In short, these findings can be used to aid moral reflection so as to teach the students how to improve their moral reasoning and, by doing so, empower them for dealing with future moral dilemmas such as those concerning genetic tests” (Van der Zande 8). He makes clear moral reflection is a necessity in dealing with bioethics and eugenics and needs to be improved in genetics education. Comparatively when concluding his study Rabino states a need for, “A more genetically literate public to deal effectively with their own genetic health care as well as to be informed about the scientific, legal, and social issues in the public debate about human genetics” (Rabino 397). Rabino stresses the need for genetically literate public which implies both education and moral reflection on eugenic issues as to contribute the creation of rational ethical boundaries. Both Van der Zande and Rabino call for an increase in moral reflection, either through internal thought or open debate, and reform in genetics education to create rational ethical boundaries towards eugenic applications in the field of genetics. Eugenics promises many advantages to individuals and the population as a whole. Haidt's social intuitionist model reveals how we form our ethics from intuitive moral reasoning and how this reasoning has allowed our race to advance. Scientific advancement has been a recent change supported by rational reasoning. Studies have shown that people do not perform moral reflection to ensure that their intuitive reasoning is also rational in the situation. Because of this internal conflict between our intuitive reasoning and rational reasoning ethical conflicts occur and define the degree to which science can progress. It seems apparent that ethical conflicts can only be overcome by moral reflection. It is clear how we form our ethics on eugenics and that a vast increase in moral reflection is necessary to overcome the ethical barriers that stand in the way of scientific progress. Washburn 10 Works Cited Collins. "Eugenics." Def. 1. Collin's English Dictionary. 30th Anniversary Edition ed. HarperCollins, 2003. Print. Haidt, Jonathan. "The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment." Psychological Review, 108.4 (2001): 814-834. Rabino, Isaac. "Genetic Testing and Its Implications: Human Genetics Researchers Grapple with Ethical Issues." Science, Technology, & Human Values, 28.3 (2003): 365-402. Scarre, Geoffrey. "Understanding the Moral Phenomenology of the Third Reich." Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 1.4 (1998): 423-445. van der Zande, Paul, Mieke Brekelmans, Jan Vermunt, and Arend Jan Waarlo. "Moral Reasoning in Genetics Education." Journal of Biological Education, 44.1 (2009): 31-36. Wade, Nicholas. "Is 'Do Unto Others' Written into Our Genes'." New York Times, (2007): 1.