What are the issues in this situation? Identify them and then discuss them as if you were an absolutist or relativist....
Pigs offer new stem cell source
Pigs
Pig organs are similar to their human equivalents
Chinese scientists have given cells from adult pigs the ability to turn into any tissue in the body, just like embryonic stem cells.
They hope the breakthrough could aid research into human disease, and the breeding of animals for organ transplants for humans.
It may also enable the development of pigs that are resistant to diseases such as swine flu.
Read the rest here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8078996.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The issues with this situation are whether it is right to use pig's (or any other animal) cells to treat humans, whether humans have the right to 'play god' and interfere with nature.
Discussing the situation as a relativist:
- For the first issue if I were morally opposed to using pig cells to treat humans my relativist stance may be to accept that other people may think differently. The Chinese scientists developing the porcine stem cells may not see a problem with 'mixing species'. A relativist might not personally agree with this but they would allow this research to continue because they accept that others think differently. This could have negative consequences if, for example, the porcine stem cells could react negatively with members of the public who are undergoing regenerative treatment and this 'mixing' could spread diseases from pigs to humans. On the other hand this new development in regenerative medicine could have nothing but positive consequences.
- The issue of humans 'playing god' is similar in a way to the first issue. A relativist who believed that it was wrong would not oppose the development of porcine stem cells for the reason that other people have different views on what is ethical and we shouldn't interfere with that.
The whole principle of relativism seems to be that you either do not oppose things which you are morally opposed to or you have 'flexible morals' and don't really have a fixed view with what is right and wrong. This can be a good thing in this situation as it may allow huge medical and scientific advancements however there could also be negative consequences for all humans.
As Louise already state the issue with pristine quality i am going to respond as an absolutist.
As an absolutist i am responding with the answer that yes at any point or anywhere it is acceptable to use other animals to treat or advance medically for the human race. This might be seen as "playing God" although i disagree if God us a way to prevent disease etc. then he probably wouldn't cause it through suffering of another animal. We as Homo Sapiens are at the top of the food chain and therefore eat, use, or anything else we choose to other animals. This includes testing.
Take for example a family member that could be cured with pig tissue, you wouldnt think twice normally, humans we can relate to more than pigs. So what if sometimes it doesnt work, the times that it does makes it special and from that it can be developed towards a better anti-virus etc.
Aside from Louise's points, another issue might be animal cruelty.
From the point of view of an absolutist, I would/could argue yes, as long as a human's life is saved it doesn't matter whether we are getting ahead of ouselves by playing god or treating the animals cruelly. As long as human life could be improved, it is right to do it.
Conversly, I could also argue that no, we should not use another species' cells because it is unholy/dirty/unethical. It depends on what sort of absolutist you are (ie what you use as the basis of your ethics).
(absolutist)
When looking at cultural relativism it may be part of the chinese culture and beyond my understanding, as I am coming from outside their culture, to be ethically sound from their point of view.
However, I am arguing from an absolutist point of view so in my opinion it is 100% ethically ok to test pigs for the betterment of humans because in the past animals have benefited humans in the areas of medicine etc. As long as a human's life is saved it is okey dokey. In addition to this influenza such as swine flu can be cured/prevented so that is a win win situation for both species
On the other hand, if I am arguing no that it is 100% not ethically ok to test pigs than I believe this is because that in no circumstances whatsoever is it alright to use pigs for the betterment of the human race as although we may be 'similiar' to pigs we are not the same. We are completely different species and it is not our human right to e
If an absolutist were to argue on this point, what they would argue would depend purely on their own rules of ethics, and would not be swayed regardless of the situation, as they would apply the same ethics and morals to every situation. The different standpoints that they would be able to make could be that the good of the many outways the good of the one.
If an absolutist were to believe this, then their ethics would be purely based upon the quantity of people that would be saved from this situation, and wether by following through with this stem cell research would benefit more people in the long run, than it would hurt in quantity of pigs.
However, this is a very difficult way to judge a situation, as there is no way of foreseeing the amount of people that this would benefit, and would lead to no means of adequately calculating these and would lead to an absolutist either having to change their moreals to this situation, which they would not do, or trying to find a way of predicing these things, which in most cases would lead to aiding the humans as there is no limit to the amount of time that this medicine can be used for.
Although there are other different types of ethics, there are many ways in which an absolutist may be unable to retain their ethics throughout, for example if an absolutist were to believe in animale rights, and yet, if their mother or another person they knew could be helped by this stem cell research, would they still uphold this idea? Or would there emotions become too involved and would they be forced to change their ethics, something that an absolutist shouldn't do, purely due to their emotional ties to this particular case. Then, you would also have to consider whether or not this same person, later in life, after their mother had been cured, would still argue the same thing, or uphold ethics that they used to believe? Would this in itself be ethically right?
as a relatavist I may find the idea of treating people with beneficial outcomes with perhaps an immorally act of playing god. However the issues of previous immoral acts such as using stem cells to cure people are irrelevant if the ends is better than that of an ends that is justified by the morality of the means.
-relativist
my argument is that it is everyone should be able to do whatever they beleive is right
therefore, a chinese scientist has the right morally to use the stem cells from the pigs
whether i agree or disagree that using pigs as a stem cell source is right, as a relativist, i would still have to allow the scientist to use the stem cells from the pigs.
Some issues in this situation are whether it is okay to use animals for human benefit, whether it's moral to "play god" by manipulating biology in this way.
As a relativist I would say that even if I feel it's wrong to exploit/breed animals to provide organs for humans, many others might think that it's justified because it has the potential to help so many people. Even if personally I feel morally uncomfortable with this concept I accept that that is only my view, so I wouldn't oppose this research on that basis.
Post a Comment