I'm the King of the World: Ethics in action from a humanistic perspective
On January 16, 2005, Adriana Iliescu became the oldest woman to have a child. At 66, Ms. Iliescu gave birth to a three pound one ounce baby girl through IVF treatments using donated eggs and sperm and by way of caesarean section. I have long had concerns over IVF technologies under normal circumstances which I have written about to some degree on this blog, but this case raises the bar of concern over the mindset and worldview of those who believe that personal autonomy gives us the right and privilege to do whatever we wish to do whenever we want.
Besides the dangers to the woman herself, there are concerns over the well-being of the child, both physically as well as psychologically and developmentally, having a "mother" (again, this woman was only the carrier of the child to which she is in no way biologically related) as old as she is. As is often the case, the line from the movie, Juraissic Park is apprapoe: "Just because we can, should we?" The problem with many related to that question lies in the fact that there is no "should." To say that something "should" or "should not" be done presupposes a right or wrong, better or worse. Stated more simply, it presupposes an absolute, transcendant standard which is only possible if there is a Absolute Lawgiver or Source. Since many do not espouse the belief in an Absolute Law-giver, there is really no substantial reason or right to believe in anything more than opinion, pragmatism, and desire. If one chooses any of these three as a basis for their morality or guiding force, they are left with a view that can change with the wind; that can be shifted by public opinion. That, of course, is what is occurring here.
The view that people may do whatever they are capable of doing is becoming more and more widely accepted as moral and ethical standards shift with the autonomous will of the people. Funny thing is, many people are fine with this worldview until the majority decides to make a moral shift away from something that they disagree with. As is the case with the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands, hospitals are moving into the area of making life and death decisions for terminally ill people which they call "mercy killings." One frightening aspect of this (among many!) is that they have determined that in some cases a committee can make the decision to carry out one of these "mercy killings" in spite of the family's wishes or protests to the contrary. Again, we see morality and ethics run amuck when there is no Absolute on which to base our standards.
Without a transcendent Creator, life has no intrinsic value, ethics are opinions, people are expendable, and hope is lost. We are left with piles of matter, accidentally formed out of substance of which no one can give account of its origin, in a world that somehow developed from chaotic nothingness into an amazingly intricate masterpiece without a master, which serves no purpose only to pass on into annihilation. Wow...what a great worldview that is. Where do I sign up?
Unfortunately, that is the worldview we see at work here. It is the worldview that is guiding much of our scientific advancements and forming the ethics from which our choices are made. Unless there is some major shift in thinking and understanding, I'm afraid we can only brace ourselves for more of the same. When people get the taste of power in their mouths, it too often leads to absolute corruption in the name of scientific advancement.
For more commentary on the Adriana Iliescu story, I encourage you to read Dr. Al Mohler's blog at Crosswalk.com.
Besides the dangers to the woman herself, there are concerns over the well-being of the child, both physically as well as psychologically and developmentally, having a "mother" (again, this woman was only the carrier of the child to which she is in no way biologically related) as old as she is. As is often the case, the line from the movie, Juraissic Park is apprapoe: "Just because we can, should we?" The problem with many related to that question lies in the fact that there is no "should." To say that something "should" or "should not" be done presupposes a right or wrong, better or worse. Stated more simply, it presupposes an absolute, transcendant standard which is only possible if there is a Absolute Lawgiver or Source. Since many do not espouse the belief in an Absolute Law-giver, there is really no substantial reason or right to believe in anything more than opinion, pragmatism, and desire. If one chooses any of these three as a basis for their morality or guiding force, they are left with a view that can change with the wind; that can be shifted by public opinion. That, of course, is what is occurring here.
The view that people may do whatever they are capable of doing is becoming more and more widely accepted as moral and ethical standards shift with the autonomous will of the people. Funny thing is, many people are fine with this worldview until the majority decides to make a moral shift away from something that they disagree with. As is the case with the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands, hospitals are moving into the area of making life and death decisions for terminally ill people which they call "mercy killings." One frightening aspect of this (among many!) is that they have determined that in some cases a committee can make the decision to carry out one of these "mercy killings" in spite of the family's wishes or protests to the contrary. Again, we see morality and ethics run amuck when there is no Absolute on which to base our standards.
Without a transcendent Creator, life has no intrinsic value, ethics are opinions, people are expendable, and hope is lost. We are left with piles of matter, accidentally formed out of substance of which no one can give account of its origin, in a world that somehow developed from chaotic nothingness into an amazingly intricate masterpiece without a master, which serves no purpose only to pass on into annihilation. Wow...what a great worldview that is. Where do I sign up?
Unfortunately, that is the worldview we see at work here. It is the worldview that is guiding much of our scientific advancements and forming the ethics from which our choices are made. Unless there is some major shift in thinking and understanding, I'm afraid we can only brace ourselves for more of the same. When people get the taste of power in their mouths, it too often leads to absolute corruption in the name of scientific advancement.
For more commentary on the Adriana Iliescu story, I encourage you to read Dr. Al Mohler's blog at Crosswalk.com.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 1/25/2005 10:26:00 AM
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home