Bioethics and Cultures:a theoretical consideration

Soraj HongladaromDepartment of Philosophy

Chulalongkorn University

Outline

How investigations in bioethics are related to culture.

How to define ‘culture’

Ethics and Meta-ethics

Is it possible to find universality in ethics?

Bioethics and the Role of Cultures

Bioethics is a systematic attempt to find answers to the vexing questions concerning the values of life.

‘Life’ here usually means that of an individual.

E.g., whether to terminate the life of a terminally ill patient

Bioethics and Culture

However, these considerations are often involved with culture, for it is natural for people to view normative and evaluative questions from their own source of normativity, which is usually their own culture and tradition.

Why Need to Talk about Culture?

The reason why cultures have become important in bioethics is also that there appear to be divergent viewpoints and judgements from various cultures regarding many bioethical problems.

For example, the Japanese used to view the brain death criterion with suspicion, since it runs counter to the Shinto belief in the body.

More ExamplesIn the West, it has been customary to take the elderly who can’t take care of themselves to nursing homes; however, in the East, such as in Thailand, such practice is frowned upon. Though there is a nursing home in Bangkok, the place is often regarded as a sad place where the elderly are neglected or even abandoned by their children. Having more than one generation under one roof is the norm.

More Examples

Perhaps a serious example is what happened in India until several decades ago. Widows whose husbands had died were expected to throw themselves into the funeral pyre of their husbands in order to show their love and devotion. In many cases the widows were thrown to the fire against their will. This is explained through the Hindu religion.

Problem

The problem arises when a practice in one culture arouses the feeling of indignation or worse in the members of another. When the British learned of the sati practice in India, they banned it.

So the problem is: Which practice among the many different ones in many cultures is the right one?

Definition of ‘Culture’

The problem is extremely difficult, and its difficulty is further compounded by the fact that the term ‘culture’ is notoriously elusive.

However, perhaps a working definition can be given as the sum total of symbolic, meaning-giving practices of a group of people.

Implications of the Definition

This definition implies that ethical deliberation belongs to culture, because the former is imbued with values and symbolic meaning.

It is true that both the British and the ancient Indians have their own ethics and their own cultures, but the problem is that whose culture (and ethics in it) is the right one.

Finding the Answer

In order to find out the answers to this question, philosophers can be divided very roughly into two groups—the relativists and the absolutists.

The relativists deny that there is a truly universal set of norms such as it can be judged objectively which norms of which culture is the right one.

Finding the Answer

Absolutists, or universalists, on the other hand, believe that ethical judgements are capable of universal, objective treatment roughly the same way as mathematics or logic or empirical science.

Ehtics and Meta-ethicsWhat we are now doing is strictly speaking not ethics, but discourse or theorization about ethics. The jargon for this latter enterprise is meta-ethics.Most discussions in bioethics today is at the level of ethics alone. That is, bioethicists ponder on questions such as which action is the right one, whether abortion is permissible in certain conditions, for example.Meta-ethicists, on the other hand, think about whether ethical judgements can ever by objective.

Ethics and Meta-ethics: more of the same

Nonetheless, there are similarities in both enterprises, Both rely on reasoning and conceptual analysis for finding out answers.

So far we have stopped at the question whether it is possible to find an objective answer to the question of ethical universality.

Is Universal Ethics Possible?

According to Immanuel Kant, universal ethics is not only possible, but necessary. Otherwise ethics itself is not possible at all.

There must be a system of universal ethics since all human beings are capable of reasoning and reasoning presupposes that there be such a universal system.

On the Other Hand

Today the Kantian faith in reason and universal human nature is being challenged from various grounds. Postmodernists typically argue that a system such as Kant’s is itself a construction, a product of its own time and age, and thus can lay no claim toward universality.

Pro and Con

Both viewpoints have their own advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, living in the world where there is no universal system at all seems to risk giving up all ethics all together --> humans driving down toward anarchy and ‘war of all against all.’

Pro and Con

On the other hand, there is no denial of the fact that cultural diversity clearly means diversity in ethical viewpoints. And to deny that seems to risk the stance of colonialism or ‘might is right’ doctrine again.

Finding an Answer: back to basics

Perhaps we could make better sense of all this if we stepped down from the theories and look at what is really happening.

Let us look at the arguments surrounding research on human embryonic stem cells.

Stem Cell Research

Often the debate is characterized as a struggle between the quest for scientific progress and ethical concerns protecting human beings.

Of course culture is concerned. But if we look at the debates being aired, we would find very little of the theories I have discussed so far.

Stem Cell Research

The crux of the problem is whether the embryo is a human being or a person or not.

For some it is just a collection of cells not unlike the skin cells that fall out of the body everyday.

But these collection of cells has the potential to become another human being.

Stem Cell Research

So the debates usually start from a set of assumptions that the other side may not be prepared to accept. And this shows that arguments based on culture alone can lead nowhere except deep disagreement.

A Way OutThe ‘impasse’ is only illusory. Once we have more and better information and knowledge about this phenomenon than we do now, it is conceivable that the dilemma will disappear.The impasse is only a symptom of lack or inadequate knowledge. Perhaps in the near future we could find a way to treat all the diseases for which embryonic stem cell research shows promise, but without having to start from the stem cells.

Way OutThis ‘way out’ is based on the idea that many disagreements among culture regarding questions of value are only are only illusory. Once more information is available, the dilemma go away.So the direction of research should not only be on how to develop the stem cells and leave the difficult questions to bioethicists, but to start to find ways to sidestep these questions through scientific means.

What Does This Have to Do with Culture?

Answer: A lot. As groups of human beings interact with one another intensively, it is impossible to keep a set of culture in one group intact. Thus ethical attitudes in one culture can well change as a result of these intermingling among cultures.

What Does This Have to Do with Culture?

When we have conflicting sets of norm from different cultures, what we should do is not to confront one with the other, but to search for a way to avoid the confrontation while keeping the benefits.