Playing God (ethics)

Last updated

Playing God refers to assuming powers of decision, intervention, or control metaphorically reserved to God. Acts described as playing God may include, for example, deciding who should live or die in a situation where not everyone can be saved, the use and development of biotechnologies such as synthetic biology, [1] and in vitro fertilisation. [2] Usually the expression is used pejoratively and to criticize or argue against the supposedly God-like actions. [3] [4]

Contents

Description

Playing God is a broad concept, which is encompassed by both theological and scientific topics. When the term is used, it can be used to refer to people who try to exercise great authority and power. It is usually pejorative and suggests arrogance, misappropriation of power, or tampering with matters in which humans should not meddle.

Etymology

The official theatrical poster for Frankenstein (1931). In one scene (censored from the final film), Dr. Frankenstein proclaimed, "Now I know what it feels like to be God!" Frankenstein poster 1931.jpg
The official theatrical poster for Frankenstein (1931). In one scene (censored from the final film), Dr. Frankenstein proclaimed, "Now I know what it feels like to be God!"

Playing God generally refers to someone using their power to make decisions regarding the fate of another's life or many lives. Theologian Paul Ramsey is noted for saying, "Men ought not to play God before they learn to be men, and after they have learned to be men they will not play God." The religious framework of approach to this phrase refers to said religion's deity having a set plan for mankind, therefore man's hubris may lead to the misuse of technology related to sacred life or nature. [5] Other famous literary texts that allude to a man and God complex include Men Like Gods by H. G. Wells and You Shall Be Gods by Erich Fromm. The notion of god-like knowledge or power in humans goes back at least to the story of forbidden fruit in Genesis 3:4–5 whose traditional English translation includes the words "ye shall be as gods".

History of the accusation

In bioethics

In modern history, there have been many scientific projects, which have been considered to be attempted acts of playing God. Biomedical projects such as the attempted creation of artificial sperm and the creation of artificial life itself have brought the sci-fi stories of the 1900s out of fantasy and closer to reality. Other projects scientists have attempted include cloning (Dolly the sheep), even bringing back other extinct species that were previously thought to have been lost to time and could possibly be reintroduced to the wild. The fairly recent discovery of DNA has led to scientists toying with the idea that perhaps human genetics could be edited and possibly improved, despite there being opposition regarding unknown and possibly dire consequences.

The most common form of "playing God" in the modern era is then often attributed to bioethics. Bioethics refers to ethical issues regarding biological science, medicine etc. IVF treatment, abortion, genetic engineering, and artificial insemination are a few of the major topics regarding synthetic reproduction. Cloning was the centre of the playing God topic for decades and is still a taboo scientific subject due to this. Nicholas Hartsoeker in 1694 studied sperm under a microscope and the diagram he proposed for what sperm was, a homunculus in the head of the human sperm. A very little human was said to be observed, and this continued an Aristotelian thought that the sperm was in fact, a sacred little person. [6] Rabbis continued to use Hartsoeker's image centuries later attempting to prove that artificial interference with an embryo or birth was murder, destruction of life. [6] Western nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia have made many advances in fields such as IVF, however, places like the Far East do not show nearly as much interest in the topic. Eastern philosophy has its own outlook on issues regarding "playing God", such as the Confucianism school of thought. [7] This provides another angle of analysis that can be offered towards this complicated matter.

In genetic modification

There is a strong debate regarding morality and the consequences of science and playing God. Gene editing is a big topic that has been the centre of the argument for decades. [8] Many religious figures believe the notion that life is the plan of God and not to be taken away or synthetically given by man, while some scientists argue that if humans are able to do so then God must have meant it to be.

The bioethical debate regarding genetic modification in food and humans has many arguments for and against. In the UK, 4% of the half a million children born have life-affecting genetic defects. [9] This includes genetic diseases that can lead to early death, long-term mental issues, or a lifetime of debilitating physical health problems. Many scientists and supporters of genetic modification argue that DNA is not sacred, and is in fact just chemical sequences in an organism. DNA down to the microscope is just atoms made of elements just like any other living or non-living matter. The University of Pennsylvania in 2016 used mice with a genetic liver disease and were able to genetically edit the mice at birth so that they did not have this deadly disease. [9] It is also argued that since humans are part of nature, then all actions of humanity are technically natural. [10] A beaver building a dam is considered natural, a bird building a nest is also considered natural, so therefore the activities of humans are also natural and a result of autonomy and free will. [10] This argument deduces that certain animals evolved with special traits to assist with their survival and humans developed the special trait of technological advancement.

A common argument against genetic editing especially that of children is the designer baby argument. Designer babies would be children who have been created to be stronger, smarter, possibly more attractive, and with many other desirable traits. This would be a technology that would only be accessible to the rich according to opponents of genetic editing and would create a big divide in society between the rich and the poor not only in wealth status but also in physical appearance and physical ability. [9] The non-secular aspect of opposition to genetic modification is the idea that genetic modification and editing is a step further than selective breeding and an area humanity should not trespass in. King Charles III strongly opposes genetically modified crops and states that mixing genetic materials from different species is dangerous and a matter we should not delve into. [10] It is argued that the crucial boundary between humanity's choice and chance is reliant on the spine of ethics and morality; a minor shift in boundary could cause serious harm to the future of society.

In geo-engineering

Climate and weather is also a factor that scientists have been looking into that humans could control, with terraforming and cities around the world that are made from scratch and planned out including their geography. Geo-engineering is an example of changing the planet that many deem to be unnatural and against God. [11] It involves large-scale manipulation of our Earth's natural elements such as the seas, skies, or even atmosphere to counteract against certain environmental issues such as climate change. The debate among scholars is an ongoing battle, where they seek to bring awareness to critical issues and answer questions that relate to the different morality positions when dealing with the manipulation of earth's elements. When focusing on climate engineering and changing the very critical environment that God has provided, we, humans, need to be aware of the possible negative outcomes that can arise when engineering our climate. We need to be ready for anything. One must think about who the vulnerable people are, that are going to be affected by the unperceived consequences. With climate engineering, people are left to question the religious morality of what the human role is when looking at the grand scheme of the universe. Climate change and geo-engineering brings in the concept of the "playing God" critique when dealing with policy changes. The critique on "playing God" refers to the idea that the human species should not be allowed to manipulate our planet, in a way that undermines human's conventional involvement and action with the world around us. Many new technological advances, such as the more recent AI or gene modifications, are just a few examples, that feed on the idea of humans "playing God" or presumably undertaking power that rightfully belongs to both God and the land. [11] Climate engineering once an invention from science fiction is now very real and part of an international political conversation. More extreme practices of climate engineering include stimulating phytoplankton blooms in the ocean by seeding iron to absorb excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to spraying aerosols in the skies to give clouds the maximum reflectivity and brighten them. [11]

Many secular and even non-secular individuals advocate against geo-engineering and altering the climate simply because the perceived risks are too great. [10] Due to the lack of understanding from humans regarding the consequences of putting different chemicals into the atmosphere or seeding oceans, opponents of geo-engineering suggest it be abandoned (Hartman, 2017). However, climate scientists who support the geo-engineering idea such as Ken Caldeira of Stanford University, suggest that instead of abandoning the idea due to risk, there should be continued research for the consequences of geo-engineering so that the exact probabilities and effects of consequences are understood. [10] Scientists also argue that geo-engineering in some instances can be cheaper and quite financially feasible; however, the opposition to this is that it is a mere quick fix that moves attention away from the development of long-term solutions[ citation needed ].

In artificial intelligence

Deep Blue, a computer similar to this one defeated chess world champion Garry Kasparov in May 1997. It is the first computer to win a match against a world champion. Photo taken at the Computer History Museum. Deep Blue.jpg
Deep Blue, a computer similar to this one defeated chess world champion Garry Kasparov in May 1997. It is the first computer to win a match against a world champion. Photo taken at the Computer History Museum.

Artificial intelligence has been a frequent topic of moral questioning in the 21st century. Many deem the human creation of another dimension where the being is sentient and possibly near identical to human intelligence to be an act of playing God. [12] Contrary to bioethics and geo-engineering, artificial intelligence does not physically intervene in nature and its processes. Since the invention of the Internet and complex computing systems and algorithms, artificial intelligence has exponentially improved and is now used in everyday technology. The term "artificial intelligence" contrasts that of natural intelligence, displayed by biological organisms. Major organisations around the world, including the United Nations, have commented on the relationship between artificial intelligence and the impact it may have on human lives in a negative way. UN Secretary-General António Guterres noted that AI drone strikes have the capability to possibly go rogue and take lives without human involvement. Other practices of AI can include many other matters, such as Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer that is capable of beating grandmasters at chess.

Criticism

Philip Ball has argued that "playing God" is a meaningless and dangerous cliché that has no basis in theology. He claims that it was adopted as a rhetorical weapon by bioethicist "theocons", and owes its origin as a meme to the 1931 film version of Frankenstein , and has been used by journalists to refer to things they disagree with. [13] Alexandre Erler, in response to Ball, has argued that while the phrase is not meaningless, it is extremely vague and requires further clarification for it to be useful within the context of an argument. [14]

The transhumanist objection

Gustave Moreau's Prometheus (1868) Gustave Moreau Prometheus.jpg
Gustave Moreau's Prometheus (1868)

The term directed evolution is used within the transhumanist community to refer to the idea of applying the principles of directed evolution and experimental evolution to the control of human evolution. [15] Law professor Maxwell Mehlman has said that "for transhumanists, directed evolution is likened to the Holy Grail". [15]

Riccardo Campa of the IEET wrote that "self-directed evolution" can be coupled with many different political, philosophical, and religious views within the transhumanist movement. [16]

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics</span> Effort to improve purported human genetic quality

    Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. Historically, eugenicists have altered various human gene frequencies by inhibiting the fertility of people and groups purported to be inferior or promoting that of those purported to be superior.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Transhumanism</span> Philosophical movement

    Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement that advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available new and future technologies that can greatly enhance longevity, cognition, and well-being.

    Bioethics is both a field of study and professional practice, interested in ethical issues related to health, including those emerging from advances in biology, medicine, and technologies. It proposes the discussion about moral discernment in society and it is often related to medical policy and practice, but also to broader questions as environment, well-being and public health. Bioethics is concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, theology and philosophy. It includes the study of values relating to primary care, other branches of medicine, ethical education in science, animal, and environmental ethics, and public health.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Nick Bostrom</span> Philosopher and writer (born 1973)

    Nick Bostrom is a philosopher known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, whole brain emulation, superintelligence risks, and the reversal test. He was the founding director of the now dissolved Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford and is now Principal Researcher at the Macrostrategy Research Initiative.

    New eugenics, also known as liberal eugenics, advocates enhancing human characteristics and capacities through the use of reproductive technology and human genetic engineering. Those who advocate new eugenics generally think selecting or altering embryos should be left to the preferences of parents, rather than forbidden. "New" eugenics purports to distinguish itself from the forms of eugenics practiced and advocated in the 20th century, which fell into disrepute after World War II.

    Ectogenesis is the growth of an organism in an artificial environment, outside the body in which it would normally be found, such as the growth of an embryo or fetus outside the mother's body, or the growth of bacteria outside the body of a host. The term was coined by British scientist J. B. S. Haldane in 1924.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Designer baby</span> Genetically modified human embryo

    A designer baby is a baby whose genetic makeup has been selected or altered, often to exclude a particular gene or to remove genes associated with disease. This process usually involves analysing a wide range of human embryos to identify genes associated with particular diseases and characteristics, and selecting embryos that have the desired genetic makeup; a process known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Screening for single genes is commonly practiced, and polygenic screening is offered by a few companies. Other methods by which a baby's genetic information can be altered involve directly editing the genome before birth, which is not routinely performed and only one instance of this is known to have occurred as of 2019, where Chinese twins Lulu and Nana were edited as embryos, causing widespread criticism.

    Many of the tropes of science fiction can be viewed as similar to the goals of transhumanism. Science fiction literature contains many positive depictions of technologically enhanced human life, occasionally set in utopian societies. However, science fiction's depictions of technologically enhanced humans or other posthuman beings frequently come with a cautionary twist. The more pessimistic scenarios include many dystopian tales of human bioengineering gone wrong.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Human enhancement</span> Natural, artificial, or technological alteration of the human body

    Human enhancement is the natural, artificial, or technological alteration of the human body in order to enhance physical or mental capabilities.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Julian Savulescu</span> Australian philosopher and bioethicist

    Julian Savulescu is an Australian philosopher and bioethicist. He is Chen Su Lan Centennial Professor in Medical Ethics and director of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics at National University of Singapore. He was previously Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, and co-director of the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities. He is visiting professorial fellow in Biomedical Ethics at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Australia, and distinguished visiting professor in law at Melbourne University since 2017. He directs the Biomedical Ethics Research Group and is a member of the Centre for Ethics of Pediatric Genomics in Australia. He is a former editor and current board member of the Journal of Medical Ethics, which is ranked as the No.2 journal in bioethics worldwide by Google Scholar Metrics, as of 2022. In addition to his background in applied ethics and philosophy, he also has a background in medicine and neuroscience and completed his MBBS (Hons) and BMedSc at Monash University, graduating top of his class with 18 of 19 final year prizes in Medicine. He edits the Oxford University Press book series, the Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Posthuman</span> Person or entity that exists in a state beyond being human

    Posthuman or post-human is a concept originating in the fields of science fiction, futurology, contemporary art, and philosophy that means a person or entity that exists in a state beyond being human. The concept aims at addressing a variety of questions, including ethics and justice, language and trans-species communication, social systems, and the intellectual aspirations of interdisciplinarity.

    In philosophy and bioethics, potential (future) person has been defined as an entity which is not currently a person but which is capable of developing into a person, given certain biologically and/or technically possible conditions. The term unconceived has also been used in a similar sense, but does not necessarily include the capability of being conceived or developing into a person.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Transhumanist politics</span> Political ideologies based on Transhumanism

    Transhumanist politics constitutes a group of political ideologies that generally express the belief in improving human individuals through science and technology. Specific topics include space migration, and cryogenic suspension. It is considered the opposing ideal to the concept of bioconservatism, as Transhumanist politics argue for the use of all technology to enhance human individuals.

    The nonidentity problem in population ethics is the problem that an act may still be wrong even if it is not wrong for anyone. More precisely, the nonidentity problem is the inability to simultaneously hold the following beliefs: (1) a person-affecting view; (2) bringing someone into existence whose life is worth living, albeit flawed, is not "bad for" that person; (3) some acts of bringing someone into existence are wrong even if they are not bad for someone. Rivka Weinberg has used the nonidentity problem to study the ethics of reproduction.

    Jan Deckers works in bioethics at Newcastle University. His work revolves mainly around three topics: animal ethics, reproductive ethics and embryo research, and ethics of genetics.

    Human germline engineering is the process by which the genome of an individual is edited in such a way that the change is heritable. This is achieved by altering the genes of the germ cells, which then mature into genetically modified eggs and sperm. For safety, ethical, and social reasons, there is broad agreement among the scientific community and the public that germline editing for reproduction is a red line that should not be crossed at this point in time. There are differing public sentiments, however, on whether it may be performed in the future depending on whether the intent would be therapeutic or non-therapeutic.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">S. Matthew Liao</span> Taiwanese-born American philosopher

    S. Matthew Liao is a Taiwanese-American philosopher specializing in bioethics and normative ethics. Liao currently holds the Arthur Zitrin Chair of Bioethics, and is the Director of the Center for Bioethics and Affiliated Professor in the Department of Philosophy at New York University. He has previously held appointments at Oxford, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, and Princeton.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Bioconservatism</span> Cautious stance towards modifying human nature

    Bioconservatism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes caution and restraint in the use of biotechnologies, particularly those involving genetic manipulation and human enhancement. The term "bioconservatism" is a portmanteau of the words biology and conservatism.

    Moral enhancement, also called moral bioenhancement, is the use of biomedical technology to morally improve individuals. MBE is a growing topic in neuroethics, a field developing the ethics of neuroscience as well as the neuroscience of ethics. After Thomas Douglas introduced the concept of MBE in 2008, its merits have been widely debated in academic bioethics literature. Since then, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu have been among the most vocal MBE supporters. Much of the debate over MBE has focused on Persson and Savulescu's 2012 book in support of it, Unfit for the Future? The Need for Moral Enhancement.

    The eradication or abolition of suffering is the concept of using biotechnology to create a permanent absence of involuntary pain and suffering in all sentient beings.

    References

    1. Dabrock, Peter (2009-10-10). "Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge". Systems and Synthetic Biology. 3 (1–4): 47–54. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9028-5. ISSN   1872-5325. PMC   2759421 . PMID   19816799.
    2. Macer, D. R. (Jan 1994). "Perception of risks and benefits of in vitro fertilization, genetic engineering and biotechnology". Social Science & Medicine. 38 (1): 23–33. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90296-8. ISSN   0277-9536. PMID   8146712.
    3. Lombrozo, Tania (2019-05-02). "Human Exceptionalism Stifles Progress". Nautilus . Retrieved 2019-05-02.
    4. Waytz, Adam; Young, Liane (2019-04-29). "Aversion to playing God and moral condemnation of technology and science". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 374 (1771): 20180041. doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0041. PMC   6452244 . PMID   30852991.
    5. Meixner, Uwe (March 2019). "Playing God". Religions. 10 (3): 209. doi: 10.3390/rel10030209 .
    6. 1 2 Winston, Robert (December 2003). "Playing God?". Nature. 426 (6967): 603. Bibcode:2003Natur.426..603W. doi: 10.1038/426603a . ISSN   1476-4687.
    7. Wong, Pak-Hang (2015). "Confucian Environmental Ethics, Climate Engineering, and the "Playing God" Argument". Zygon. 50 (1): 28–41. doi:10.1111/zygo.12151. ISSN   1467-9744.
    8. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=158162977&site=ehost-live&scope=site [ bare URL ]
    9. 1 2 3 McFadden, Johnjoe (2016-02-02). "Genetic editing is like playing God – and what's wrong with that? | Johnjoe McFadden". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2020-05-29.
    10. 1 2 3 4 5 Weckert, John (2016). Clarke, Steve; Savulescu, Julian; Coady, Tony; Giubilini, Alberto; Sanyal, Sagar (eds.). Playing God: What is the Problem?. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198754855.001.0001. ISBN   978-0-19-181635-2.
    11. 1 2 3 Hartman, Laura M. (2017). "Climate Engineering and the Playing God Critique". Ethics & International Affairs. 31 (3): 313–333. doi:10.1017/S0892679417000223. ISSN   0892-6794. S2CID   149327407.
    12. Mizrahi, Moti (2020-01-10). "How to Play the "Playing God" Card". Science and Engineering Ethics. 26 (3): 1445–1461. doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00176-7. ISSN   1471-5546. PMID   31925661. S2CID   210149622.
    13. Ball, Philip (2010-05-24). ""Playing God" is a meaningless, dangerous cliché". Prospect Magazine. Retrieved 2020-04-12.
    14. Erler, Alexandre (2010-05-26). "Is "playing God" just a meaningless phrase?". Practical Ethics. Retrieved 2020-04-12.
    15. 1 2 Maxwell, Mehlman. "Will Directed Evolution Destroy Humanity, and If So, What Can We Do About It?" (PDF). 3 St. Louis U.J. Health L. & Pol'y 93, 96-97 (2009]. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-12-10.
    16. Campa, Riccardo. "Toward a transhumanist politics". Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Archived from the original on 29 June 2009. Retrieved 26 February 2015.

    Further reading