Stanford University’s William Hurlbut and I are great friends. Bill is best known for his service on the President’s Council on Bioethics, and his proposal to circumvent the ethics/science discord over human cloning and ESCR with “altered nuclear transfer,” which I don’t wish to discuss in this thread.
Bill strongly supports human exceptionalism–although he doesn’t tend to use that term. Bill has long advocated for the intrinsic value of human life at all stages, including the human embryo. He puts it so eloquently–far better than I–that it seemed appropriate to share some of his thoughts here. From one of his speeches:
The very word organism implies organization, an overarching principle that binds the parts and processes of life into a harmonious whole. As a living being, an organism is an integrated, self developing and self-maintaining unity under the governence of an immanent plant.
That is different and distinct from the cells I kill each morning when I brush my teeth. They are chips off the old block, to use my late father’s favorite expression. But they are not the block.
Rejecting more subjective approaches to valuing life such as basing it upon individual capacities (such as “personhood”), Hurlbut asserted that the embryo’s worth arises merely from being an undeniably a human “organism.”
For an embryonic organism, this implies an inherent potency, an engaged and effective potential with a drive in the direction of the mature form. By its very nature, an embryo is a developing being. Its wholeness is defined by both its manifest expression and its latent potential; it is the phase of human life in which the ‘whole’ (as the unified oranismal principle of grown) precedes and produces its organic parts…To be a human organism is to be a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens, with a human present and a human future evident in the intrinsic potential for the manifestation of the species typical to form.
Valuing human life at all stages does not require religion, a belief in souls, or the rejection of science. It is a coherent philosophy. I can’t think of a better way to protect the weak and vulnerable among us–or maintain a social system that accepts and enforces universal human rights–than embracing the intrinsic value of all human life.
Discuss.
February 17th, 2011 | 3:22 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: William Hurlbut on Why Embryos Matter Morally » http://bit.ly/ffUaA3 [...]
February 17th, 2011 | 3:39 pm
[...] Source Share and Enjoy: [...]
February 17th, 2011 | 3:41 pm
Not all supporters of human exceptionalism are religiously motivated, but most are. Your friend William Burton, for instance, apart from being a physician and professor of biology, received postdoctoral training in theology from the Institut Catholique de Paris.
I agree that we ought to value human life at all stages, but I also feel that the lives of other animals deserve, in a few cases, commensurate consideration. This would mean, I suppose, that though I consider myself a strong supporter of universal human rights and a promoter of human dignity, I have to count myself among the opponents of “human exceptionalism”.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Purple Rain: William Burton??? I asked Bill if he studied at the Institut. He did not. He studied with a professor who also has taught there. He’s not Catholic, but is Christian. But his advocacy isn’t about religion. Or are we to assume that religious people are always about their religion even when they are not?
February 17th, 2011 | 3:59 pm
http://www.templetonresearchlectures.com/winners/stanford_bios.html#hurlbut
William Hurlbut. My mistake.
Apart from being a Christian, he has postgraduate training in theology, “studying with Robert Hamerton-Kelly, the Dean of the Chapel of Stanford, and subsequently with the Rev. Louis Bouyer of the Institut Catholique de Paris”.
Hardly the perfect example with which to demonstrate that views of this sort do not require religion.
I am a religious person myself and I would say that most of my views about the nature of human life and the human person are shaped by my religion. I am quite comfortable with this fact and wish others had the courage to clearly identify the religious foundations of their ideas, if those foundations exist.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Here is my problem with your comment: Bill is religious in his personal life. He is not making theological arguments, but making assertions of human dignity based on science and philosophy. If what he actually says is irrelevant, that means any argument he makes is a religious argument, even when he is making no theistic or soul assertions. That would mean only atheists could make secular arguments. I reject that notion.
February 17th, 2011 | 4:27 pm
Wes, I hate to burst your bubble, but this doesn’t actually lead to the valuing of all human life. At the very best – and I think this is being massively charitable – it leads to the valuing of all life that has a form typical of the human species. So if an embryo’s genetic code is such that it will fail to, say, develop two legs, that embryo is not (on this definition) a human organism. While it is certainly a coherent philosophy, it draws all of its lines wrongly.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Eli: Nonsense. Bill makes no such relativistic assertions, either in the very small section I quoted or in his other work. A person without legs is as much a human being under Bill’s thesis as any other human being. Ditto embryos with an extra chromosome. Human gene expression and other biological activities are distinctly human. Membership in the species gives value, regardless of maturity, disability, health, etc. No subjective measurements.
February 17th, 2011 | 5:43 pm
Embryos are nothing more than a resource that can be exploited like any other resource. They have no more “moral” value than the gasoline I put in my car or the food I buy at the supermarket.
The notion that embyos have moral value is really quite silly. Being human means having dreams and goals, to have aspirations and memories. Embyos do not have these traits. Therefor, they cannot be considered human in any meaningful sense.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Abelard Lindsey: So my uncle who died of Alzheimer’s ceased being human because he lost those capacities? A baby who has no such capacities isn’t human? Not on my watch. You proved the arbitrary and potentially tyrannical consequences of rejecting human exceptionalism.
February 17th, 2011 | 5:45 pm
Valuing human life at all stages does not require religion, a belief in souls, or the rejection of science. It is a coherent philosophy.
It is also an answer to a question I find troubling.
If we do not value all human life, then how can we determine which lives are worth valuing and which ones are not?
Who decides? How do we decide?
The act of drawing a line is inherently political. If one accepts the starting point that “all men are created equal” – even if one rephrases it to take out politically inflammatory implications (such as “men” vs. “people”, or “created” as suggesting religious belief) – “all human beings deserve equal human rights” – however you phrase it, I believe that the idea in any form is fundamentally incompatible with the idea that any individual man or group of men can decide where to draw the line between human life that is valuable vs. human life that is not.
February 17th, 2011 | 6:34 pm
Abelard, can you tell me the exact moment you became human , how that came about and how did you know you were now human ? What was it that caused you to be human and what were you before that precise moment?
February 17th, 2011 | 6:39 pm
Abelard Lindsey: “Embryos are nothing more than a resource that can be exploited like any other resource. They have no more ‘moral’ value than the gasoline I put in my car or the food I buy at the supermarket.”
I honestly thought ol’ Abe here was being ironic to make a point, at first, before realizing that was not the case.
“The notion that embyos have moral value is really quite silly. Being human means having dreams and goals, to have aspirations and memories. Embyos do not have these traits. Therefor, they cannot be considered human in any meaningful sense.”
– except a scientific one, of course. Science doesn’t appear to be something you adhere to, of course, since you’re doing the same Hallmark-card romanticization of what being a human being means that so many other intellectually dishonest people do. You’re also working backward: “Well, I’m a human being and I play poker! Whoever heard of an embryo playing poker?! Therefore, embryos aren’t human beings!” Ah, no, Abe. That’s not how it works.
February 17th, 2011 | 7:17 pm
I was under the impression that someone with Professor Hurlbut’s beliefs couldn’t be awarded a faculty position at a liberal university such as Stanford.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Extremely rare. He’s been there over 20 years. And his family is deeply Standford. But be puerile.
February 17th, 2011 | 10:11 pm
[...] Morally – First Things (blog)Posted February 18, 2011 in New Content by Michael Conniff0 TweetFirst Things (blog)William Hurlbut on Why Embryos Matter MorallyFirst Things (blog)Bill is best known for his service [...]
February 18th, 2011 | 3:19 am
The embryo, contains all the genetic information necessary, for all parts of the body to manifest themselves. The only logical conclusion, is that the embryo is the beginning of human personhood.
February 18th, 2011 | 9:31 am
Wes,
I’m immature for pointing out an exception to your rule?
How do you know that abortion opponents are underrepresented at universities? Data?
February 18th, 2011 | 9:55 am
Abelard,
So if you’re a amnesiac slacker, it’s open season on you for the cannibals?
Blake,
Exactly! When you cut a line through a human race, the moving of that line is only inevitable by those with the interest to do so. And then it’s not too long before those who drew the line suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of it and the only argument left to them is “but you can’t cause it’s me!”
February 18th, 2011 | 11:40 am
What a bunch of nonsense.
“inherent potency” (this is measured how?)
“engaged and effective potential” (this is determined how?)
a “drive in the direction of a mature form” (how does one measure “drive”? they must be terrible drivers because about 50% of them get spontaneously aborted – so why don’t we demand a therapeutic cure for this?)
here’s my favorite:
“wholeness is defined by both its manifest expression and its latent potential” – and this means what, exactly? does one need a “latent” volt meter to measure “latent potential”?
Thank you, Smith, for providing a very concrete example as to why this kitsch isn’t taken seriously. Word vomit may “touch people’s hearts” or any other silly emotional fluff fit for a poetry slam at a coffee house, but it won’t stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
So, something has the potential to be a full human being and the “drive” (really just chemical reactions selected for stability and expansion), therefore it’s human? Wow, talk about a cheap definition of humans.
I would imagine my sperm cells would nicely fit many of the regaled descriptors Hurlbut has tried to appease us with, especially that “potential” part.
[Long list of irrelevant liberal policy issues deleted. I don't want to open this to conversational anarchy.]
February 18th, 2011 | 12:35 pm
Sperm aren’t organisms, Mr. “Science is a philosophy.” But judging from your bitterness, Hurlbut scored.
February 18th, 2011 | 3:05 pm
David,
You have to get off your fallacious tack on miscarriages. Just because people die of chromosomal abnormalities, car accidents or lightning strikes doesn’t give you a moral right to hack people limb from limb, run them over with your car (“they might have been run over anyway officer! Do you know how many car accidents there are already?”) or electrocute them.
Apply your logic to other issues. Should people protesting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq be ashamed and devote all their time instead to completely curing heart disease? Heck, 40% of those soldiers, terrorists and civilians will die of heart disease and strokes anyway, what’s the use, right?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 18th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
All: JustChris’s rhetorical question does not open those areas to discussion.
February 18th, 2011 | 4:16 pm
Good grief, am I tired of the absurd “So many embryos fail to implant, anyway!” argument — as if we should legalize infanticide in nations with high infant mortality rates. “So many of ‘em don’t even LIVE that long, ya know!”
David: “Word vomit may ‘touch people’s hearts’ or any other silly emotional fluff fit for a poetry slam at a coffee house, but it won’t stand up to rigorous scrutiny.”
You have the effrontery to accuse your opponents of “word vomit” when your side is the one to argue that embryos must not be human beings because they don’t have “hopes and dreams”? Really?
February 18th, 2011 | 10:33 pm
Jeez, this thread got stupid in a hurry.
February 19th, 2011 | 12:31 am
Saying that embryos (or infants, or the disabled) are “not human” because they lack certain qualities of personhood sets up what I like to call the “tryout theory” of humanity.
If you have to have certain “dreams” and “aspirations” to be considered human, then some body will need to set the rules of who is human and who is not, since we’ve switched from objective to subjective criteria. Human beings on the borderline of personhood will have to be judged by some body which will rule on whether they have enough cognitive function to be considered “persons”, or whether they are simply a natural resource for the vampires among us.
I’ve studied history – any such body would be wide-open to corruption and likely make its decisions based on political clout and societal distaste. It’s a recipe for enormous injustice.
February 19th, 2011 | 10:55 am
some body will need to set the rules of who is human and who is not, since we’ve switched from objective to subjective criteria.
That’s the problem right there.
Human beings on the borderline of personhood will have to be judged by some body which will rule on whether they have enough cognitive function to be considered “persons”, or whether they are simply a natural resource for the vampires among us.
Replace “enough cognitive function” for “enough _______” and that’s exactly what my concern is.
February 19th, 2011 | 12:16 pm
Many millions of fertilized human eggs fail to constructively implant in the receptive uterus each year. In the US alone at least a million embryos are sponatenously aborted annually. Do therapeutic abortions occurring before a spontaneous abortion would have naturally occurred ‘count’ against PP? Statistically, 25% or so of early therapeutic abortions (and most are very early anyway) are performed unknowingly on embryos or fetuses that would spontaneously abort. In the case of PP, that rate could be higher because of the poverty of many of their clients.
February 19th, 2011 | 10:10 pm
“Do therapeutic abortions occurring before a spontaneous abortion would have naturally occurred ‘count’ against PP?”
Does a murder of a cancer patient who’s been “given” 12 months to live “count” against the murderer?
February 20th, 2011 | 1:34 pm
Jeffery: We have seen your statistics about spontaneous abortion, and are waiting for the argument. I hope you’re not trying to justify abortion by saying that since some of them die anyway, then the rest can be disposed of as well.
1. Every human being has a right to life.
2. An embryo is a human being.
3. Embryos have a right to life.
If you accept this simple syllogism, we can discuss when it’s justified to take away this right. Do you accept self-defence, war or death penalty? And if you don’t accept one of those, how can you accept the killing of a defenceless, innocent, unborn human being?
February 20th, 2011 | 10:50 pm
Markus, as has been pointed out repeatedly, if you define a human being as “any organism with human DNA” then many people (myself included) would consider your first assertion false. Organisms do not have a “right to life” merely because they are genetically human.
February 21st, 2011 | 12:30 am
Wesley: There are many different claims at hand, let’s clarify them a bit.
1) “Human exceptionalism” is coherent.
2) “Human exceptionalism” protects the weak in the society.
3) Embryos are human beings.
4) Human beings are uniquely valuable.
1-2) I agree that “human exceptionalism” / “sanctity of life ethic” is internally coherent and a defensible position, and indeed should be defended. Without it (this is pragmatical justification*) the society would be a horrifying place for the weakest human beings among us, the disabled, crippled etc.
3) In the quotations, Dr. Hurlbut defends the idea that embryos are human beings. He doesn’t go to the level of why human beings are valuable.
4) If you claim that being an organism or having potency to develop will bring this moral status, I will disagree. If you claim that being a highly complex and efficient brings moral status, I will disagree. If you claim that seeing the value of the members of his species brings moral status, I still disagree. Moral theories that try to give a moral status for human beings from inside the humanity are doomed to fail.
I know this seems a bit hard line assertion. You’re free to explore as many ethical systems as you want. But when you ask: “Which one of them is right?”, the problem arises. Then you need some standard outside of humanity to judge between these systems. And truth is not a democratic vote.
* I don’t believe in pragmatism on very important questions. If you are ready to accept beliefs because they are practical, you don’t get to the truth: person A thinks that belief P is practical, person B thinks that belief not P is practical. But P and not P is a contradiction, so one of them is wrong. But which one? Persons A and B both think they have practical beliefs.
February 21st, 2011 | 1:09 am
Jeffery: Stop perverting the language.
“Spontaneuous abortion” is another wordplay by leftists to control the dialogue and give implicit legitimacy to abortion. The proper term is miscarriage.
I can imagine a term “spontaneous suicide” if people die of old age and assisted suicide is legalized.
February 21st, 2011 | 2:58 am
Raven: I presented a simple syllogism. You agree with premiss 2 but disagree with premiss 1, and that’s totally fine on a logical level. Other people who want to deny the right to life to embryos usually take premiss 1 and deny premiss 2.
I also agree with out that “being genetically human” doesn’t give one moral value, it simply means that being genetically human means that the object is a human being.
February 23rd, 2011 | 9:06 pm
[...] Morally – First Things (blog)Posted February 24, 2011 in New Content by Michael Conniff0 TweetFirst Things (blog)William Hurlbut on Why Embryos Matter MorallyFirst Things (blog)Bill is best known for his service [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact