Egalitarianism and Moral Bioenhancement
A Public Ethos of Enhancement Across Asia Darryl Macer, American University of Sovereign Nations Philosophers, like other intellectuals, can at times help shape the future of our society, and the pursuit of a better society is a common dream of all peoples. The global question of whether or not we allow people to pursue moral bioenhancement, as individuals or as members of countries, should be decided by the public in nations at large, rather than by philosophers. If global society permits some countries to offer bioenhancement to their citizens, this would be consistent with the ethos of choice that now dominates cultures around the world. The ethics of choice would counter the concept expounded in the article of Sparrow (2014), and some of the past papers (e.g., Persson and Savulescu 2012), that argue for compulsory social measures without the choices of individuals concerned. In this article I present data that pertains significantly to the question of when and how moral bioenhancement will be pursued in Asia and the Pacific. First, the results of opinion surveys conducted in Chin, India, Philippines, and Thailand indicate support of between half and threequarters of the citizens for moral bioenhancement. This is also supported by observations and interviews with people across Asia, and by common practices of people for cosmetic enhancement. Second, an analysis of the current governmental educational goals in all 47 countries of the Asian Pacific, which represent two-thirds of the world’s population, shows that all countries attempt moral enhancement by education systems and the concepts of morals and ethics. Third, the terms of the governance of Asian democracies affects the way that the technology will be adopted. MOST ASIAN SOCIETIES SUPPORT MORAL ENHANCEMENT There is a strong belief that love and compassion constitute ideal ethical behavior and a reflection of our true humanity. We need to be able to love to be fully human, and to enhance this is seen to be ethical (Macer 1998). It is another universal belief that it is better for one’s soul to be nice than nasty, to be loving rather than unkind. As the Dalai Lama (1995) wrote, “There are various positive side-effects of enhancing one’s feeling of compassion. One of them is that the greater the force of your compassion, the greater your resilience in confronting hardships and your ability to transform them into more positive conditions.” The International Bioethics Survey conducted in 1993 in 10 countries in Asia and the Pacific (Macer 1994a) found
positive views toward genetic enhancement in China, India, and Thailand, with approval in the Philippines and Singapore, and a majority rejection of this in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Less than 10% in all countries in the International Bioethics Survey saw science and technology as doing more harm than good. Overall, most people in industrialized countries around the world perceive more benefit than harm from science, and similarly positive views are found when we consider the application of innovation to goals of improving society. Most people also believe that improved quality of life depends on scientific knowledge. People also show the ability to balance benefits and risks of science and technology (Macer 1994a). Genetic engineering evokes mixed emotions of benefit and risk. People do not have a simplistic view of science and technology, and can often perceive both benefits and risks. This balancing of good and harm is necessary for bioethics, and is one indicator of the bioethical maturity of a society. Three-quarters of the Thai public approved of genetic enhancement to make people more ethical, even more than those who approved of physical and intellectual genetic enhancement. This was also confirmed in a survey conducted in the year 2000 (Kachonpadungkitti and Macer 2004). Even more of the Thai university students, 82%, approved of it. The majority of the respondents in India and Philippines also agreed. The attitudes in China were also positive (Macer et al. 1995). Interestingly, the attitudes in Thailand were more positive toward genetic enhancement of the ethics of a person than toward genetic enhancement of intellectual or physical characters, suggesting people see this as a more worthy target. Eugenic ideas found positive support in some countries, for example, for improving genes by genetic screening, and also less negative reaction—for example, a few people cited social eugenics programs, or a few were against gene therapy for enhancement. The questions regarding genetic screening and gene therapy suggest positive support for eugenics among a significant portion of the population of the world, especially in China (Lo et al. 1994), as well as in India and Thailand (Macer 1994a). Subsequent research has also supported this conclusion that there is significant support for enhancement in the most populous countries in the world, China and India. Germ-line enhancement is also supported by many persons in these surveys. In discussions during workshops and interviews I have had with persons in other countries of Asia, this positive view of enhancement is also seen in Bangladesh, Cambodia,
Address correspondence to Darryl Macer, PhD, HonD, Provost, American University of Sovereign Nations, 8800 East Chaparral Road, Suite 250, Scottsdale, AZ 85250, USA. E-mail:
[email protected]
April, Volume 14, Number 4, 2014
ajob 45
The American Journal of Bioethics
Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, and Vietnam. Currently research is being conducted to confirm this more quantitatively. In Asia, Japan is an exception, as confirmed in surveys in the past 20 years, with few people accepting enhancement, similar to Australia and New Zealand (Macer 2012). ALL ASIAN PACIFIC COUNTRIES AIM FOR MORAL ENHANCEMENT An analysis of the governmental educational goals in all 47 countries of the Asian Pacific, which represent twothirds of the world’s population, shows that all countries attempt moral enhancement by education systems and the concepts of morals and ethics.1 At the UNESCO Regional High-Level Meeting on the Teaching of Philosophy in Asia and the Pacific, held in Manila, Philippines, May 25–26, 2009, an action plan called “Thinking for the Future: An Action Plan for the Promotion of Philosophy Teaching in Asia and the Pacific” was agreed upon based on the contributions of each countries and the curriculum review. The goals for philosophy education are listed next, and a concept map for every country against this common template is available: The outcomes of philosophy education include: a) Understanding and a search for wisdom. To this end we encourage: Development of trans-disciplinary knowledge Clarification of concepts Enhancement of the ability to integrate knowledge, principles and argumentation in rational discussion Understanding the power of questions Broadening intellectual horizons Knowledge of cultural values in different communities Search for meanings Living a better life b) Development of capacities for: Quality thinking and reflective processes Wise judgment and decision making skills Formulating appropriate questions Creative thinking Foresight Reasoned choice Interpretation, construction and communication of knowledge Respect for reasons and evidence Better understanding of reality c) Development of a disposition to: Use knowledge and skills for good Increasing respect for all forms of life Take into account the interests of others and the environment in the spirit of solidarity Have empathy and compassion Be tolerant, inclusive, and reasonable Understand better the diversity of views of different persons (listen to others) Respect different points of view, people and culture, and their values 1. Wolf, A., and D. R. J. Macer article under preparation; results are available at: http://www.unescobkk.org/rushsap/philosophicalreflection-and-the/philosophyteaching
46 ajob
Reflect upon values Consider alternative possibilities and world-views Build and improve other virtues.
The action plan also concluded on curriculum that: Philosophy curricula based on research needs to be developed, adapted to local needs and integrated across all levels of education. Cooperation between different academic disciplines to encourage thinking and development of a transdisciplinary curriculum that achieves the above aims. Curriculum development workshops for in service and pre service teachers and for all levels of education needs to be organized.
HOW DOES ONE DECIDE WHAT IS ETHICAL? The governance of Asian democracies affects the way that the technology will be adopted. There are a variety of approaches to deciding whether a practice is ethical or not. In the Western Abrahamic and post-Enlightenment worldviews, there is a strong belief that universal values can be realized through objective criteria. Contrastingly, the Indic systems believe that while universal values exist, they are not achievable, because human beings apply their own subjective experiences and emotions to their knowledge of values. Therefore, although the former ascribe a degree of objectivity as a prerequisite for legitimacy, the latter consider subjectivity as a major influencing factor specific to individuals, groups, and cultures (Rai et al. 2010). This worldview will tolerate many individual choices as long as they do not do harm, and will also tolerate belief in attempting to improve ourselves. On the other hand, germ-line modification of the human genome has been argued to require broader global social consensus. The germ line is common property under the international conventions on human rights, and the common heritage concept is enshrined in the UNESCO Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, unanimously accepted by all member countries of UNESCO in 1997, and by the UN General Assembly in 1998. Another argument based on common future interest is that people migrate and those with altered germ lines or born as clones will move across national borders, and thus the whole world will become modified. All people have a common interest in the germ line (Macer 1994b). The benefit of the community over the individual is a widespread ethic across Asian countries, as is the sacrifice of individuals for the greater good. If a substantial majority of a community consider a practice to be ethical, does it make it ethical? Harmony is an important principle in Asian bioethics (Macer 1998). Current educational enhancement through intense suffering of many children is promoted across Asian educational systems. One of the underlying philosophical ideas of society is to pursue progress. The principle of beneficence asserts an obligation to help others further their important and legitimate interests. This means that if you see someone drowning, providing you can swim, you have to try to help the person by jumping in the water with that person. If you cannot swim, you have to try to
April, Volume 14, Number 4, 2014
Egalitarianism and Moral Bioenhancement
find another way to save them. If you could give everyone the ability to swim, just in case they fell into the water or had to struggle to survive in the wake of a tsunami, this would seem to be basically ethical. When we consider the thousands of persons who lost their lives in the 2004 Indian ocean tsunami simply because they could swim (not counting those who were killed by the force of the waves), it would have saved lives to simply give everyone the innate ability to be good swimmers and survive in water, rather than relying upon being taught (Macer 2012). Sparrow (2014) cites papers that state that making people more moral could help them reduce their pollution, lessening climate change. Making smaller bodies with decreased environmental impact would be an example of enhancement for benefits of nature that would seem easier to achieve because a physical trait is easier to monitor than a complex and diverse trait such as “moral.” It could also be reinforcing in cultures where body size is smaller. However, globally increased size is applauded and associated with increased chance of employment and income. Great ambiguity lies with concepts of what is “moral,” as as been written. There are certain features of the political and ethical systems that are used in Asia and the Pacific, but one could not imagine any compulsory program of bioenhancement being ethically supported across the country because of sad histories with compulsory political programs in other areas. It may be good for any philosopher who expects any compulsory program to be supported in Asia to spend some time in India or Southeast Asia and celebrate the diversity of these countries. There may be new social problems as some people choose ethical enhancement and others do not within society, but such is karma for individuals and society. Thus, the presumption of Sparrow (2014) is incorrect, and the programs will be voluntary. Also the political rulers of a country will always be those with money; we cannot expect any ruling class of moral elites to sustainably maintain political authority, so we would have little fear of a new political structure. CONCLUSIONS Asians already pursue enhancement, by wearing colored contact lenses, using whitening creams, cosmetic surgery, or face and body features, and through educational efforts.
April, Volume 14, Number 4, 2014
I do not believe that international law to prohibit development of technology will prevent society and individuals from making choices to enhance themselves. History has shown that people reject stringent laws or legalistic religions. Education of mature and tolerant citizens is a more effective and longer term solution. Given that India and China are the most populous countries in the world, what rights do philosophers in Western countries that formally colonized the world have to claim that it is immoral for people to pursue bioenhancement? None. ! REFERENCES Dalai Lama, XIV. 1995. The power of compassion. A collection of lectures by His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama. New Delhi, India: Harper Collins. Lo, W. H. Y., S. M. Han, J. Zhang, and J. L. Lee. 1994. A survey of attitudes of people with higher education to genetics and disease in Beijing. In Intractable neurological disorders, human genome research & society, ed. N. Fujiki and D. R. J. Macer, 195–198. Christchurch, New Zealand: Eubios Ethics Institute. Kachonpadungkitti, C., and D. R. J. Macer. 2004. Attitudes to biotechnology in Thailand from 1993 to 2002. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 14(4): 118–134. Macer, D. R. J. 1994a. Bioethics for the people by the people. Christchurch, New Zealand: Eubios Ethics Institute. Macer, D. R. J. 1994b. Universal bioethics and the human germ-line. Politics and Life Sciences 14: 27–29. Macer, D. R. J. 1998. Bioethics is love of life: An alternative textbook. Christchurch, New Zealand: Eubios Ethics Institute. Macer, D. R. J. 2012. Ethical consequences of the positive views of enhancement in Asia. Health Care Analysis 20(4): 385–397. Macer, D. R. J., S. Akiyama, A. T. Alora, et al. 1995. International perceptions and approval of gene therapy. Human Gene Therapy 6: 791–803. Persson, I., and J. Savulescu. 2012. Unfit for the future: The need for moral enhancement. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rai, J. S., C. Thorheim, A. Dorjderem, and D. R. J. Macer. 2010. Universalism and ethical values for the environment. Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciences in Asia and the Pacific (RUSHSAP), UNESCO Bangkok. Sparrow, R. 2014. Egalitarianism and moral bioenhancement. American Journal of Bioethics 14(4): 20–28.
ajob 47
Copyright of American Journal of Bioethics is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
