Conclusion: ESCR and Naturalistic Ethics
This is the seventh and final post in a series concerning the ethics of ESCR. I have specifically attempted to evaluate the argument for embryonic stem cell research based on the ethics of scientific naturalism.
At the end of his white paper, Lindsay finally attempts to offer the naturalist’s own theory of moral status:
We maintain that the scope of morality…should presumptively include all beings who are capable of reasoning, and therefore, capable of being influenced by moral norms.
Realizing this leaves out infants, he expands this to the loved ones of the moral community, including children. This still, however, leaves unwanted children outside the realm of moral protection. Apparently, one may do with them what one pleases. Also, on his view, if only mothers could be taught to love embryos, ESCR would suddenly become immoral. Lindsay fails to provide a foundation for moral ethics in approaching ESCR. Not only does he fail in that task, he fails to even provide a basis for making any moral claims from an approach based on scientific naturalism. He fails to make a case that naturalism can account for moral knowledge. Science may inform, perhaps direct, but is not sufficient for making moral judgments.
It is the opinion of this writer that the only firm foundation for ethics and morality is to be found in the Judeo-Christian God, who created man in his own image. Man derives his worth and ethical status on the basis of being made in the image of God. Humans are valuable, not because of anything physical, but because of something innate and immaterial. The fact is that the embryo is a living entity which is genetically distinct from all other human beings and deserves the moral status afforded to all human persons. Scott Klusendorf sums up the issue by claiming that we have…
…violated the principle that once made (us) great: (our) basic commitment to assist the small, weak, and defenseless. It’s regrettable that those espousing tolerance and compassion would treat the most vulnerable members of the human community, human embryos, as disposable instruments to be used for someone else’s benefit. This is not only a serious moral wrong, it is unnecessary. There is no credible evidence that embryonic human beings must lose their lives in order to save ours.