A critical assessment of rhetorical speech in ethical argumentation regarding biotechnology Knut W....
-
Upload
yessenia-clint -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of A critical assessment of rhetorical speech in ethical argumentation regarding biotechnology Knut W....
A critical assessment of
rhetorical speech in ethical
argumentation regarding
biotechnologyKnut W. Ruyter
Perfect copy?
•Rhetorical question?
•Neues aus dem Copy-Shop (Die Zeit)
•Hungary: reproductive cloning as the pornography of science:
rhetorical claim
•Discussion of copies played a very minor role in Norway,
other than in the form of ”the right to a unique genetic identity”
Rhetorical claims in Norway
•Pro: For the benefit of all in an inclusive society, supported
by: right to unique genetic identity, part of our common Western
heritage. Verbs: create, help
•Contra: The sorting society, supported by: tailor to fit, spare
parts, hunt for deviance. Verbs: produce, instrumentalize,
The purpose of rhetoric
•To persuade or impress (for and against)
•To rouse emotions
Ethos and pathos
•Ethos, build up, construct the character, to bolster credibility
•Pathos. If you want to exploit the feelings you need to know
them – and what triggers people
Metaphors
•To see something similar in something dissimilar
•To find good metaphors are to see similarities
•Good metaphors ”speak” to the senses and builds on
recognition
Examples
•Taken out as a test
•Much greater effect than deductive reasoning
•Two edged: for warning, for imitation
Argumentatio
•Strengthen and weaken (confirmatio – refutatio)
•Mobilize the best arguments
•Must be probable, credible (eikos): the understanding is
recognized in context, to the models (paradeigmata) that the
listeners are familiar with
Tactics, bias and means
•Allow for tactics: exaggerate, downplay
•Biased and slanted: when for a greater purpose
•Allow for means: make ridiculous
The competency of people
•Insight: what the people accept, must also the experts (and
the politicians) accept
Act relating to the application of biotechnology in human medicine, etc.
•12 June 1987, no. 68
•5 August 1994, no. 56
•5 December 2003, no. 100
•Law proposition 2007
Continuous revisions
•The focus on rhetorics
•Very little use of traditional ethical reasoning
•Extensive use of examples (to test)
•Buttressed by warning metaphors
•Result: gradual liberalization
The last revisions
•Permits use of surplus fertilized eggs according to specific
purposes and conditions. One of the purposes is to ”gain new
knowledge for future treatment of serious disease”, allowing for
e.g. therapeutic cloning.
•Permits preimplantation diagnostics, also for donor purposes,
on restricted grounds and according to specific procedures for
approval
Limits
•Not ”produce” fertilized eggs for research = amounts to
”instrumentalization of embryo” (p. 23)
•Prohibition against research on embryos that will change
DNA, apart from embryonic stem cells isolated from the embryo
(p. 33), plus prohibition against return of embryos to a woman
after research.
Rhetorics pro
•”For the benefit of everyone in an inclusive society” (§ 1-1)
•”On the basis of the ethical norms that form part of our
Western cultural heritage” (§ 1-1)
•The right to a unique genetic identity (contra reproductive
cloning)
Rhetorics contra
•”Sorteringssamfunnet”: The sorting society
•Hunt for deviance
•Discard (unwanted, deviant)
•Tailor for fit
•Design for a purpose
•Produce as spare parts
•Looked upon as ”article for everyday use”
”The result”
•The metaphor of the inclusive society was not found credible
•The metaphors of hunting, tailoring, spare parts –found even
less credible, or found wanting
•None able to admit weaknesses in their own metaphor
(refutatio)
•Heaps of pathos, very little emphasis, if any, on ethos
The context
•Alliance between Christian Democrats and The Socialist
Party (the sceptics): same result for very different reasons
•Eurobarometer: changing attitudes towards pro and less
scepticism: the woes didn’t happen
•Øverland og Lone: Live by, live with, live for? Our
biotechnological future
•”Absurd dichotomies” (either selection or prohibition)
An inclusive society
•The purpose of the Act is to ensure that medical
biotechnology are utilised for the benefit of EVERYONE in an
INCLUSIVE society
•In accordance with human dignity, human rights, personal
integrity and without any discrimination on the basis of genetic
constitution, on the basis of ethical norms that form of our
WESTERN CULTURAL HERITAGE
With the purpose of
•Developing knowledge which can help seriously ill patients;
•Helping ”carriers” of genetic disease to get a child without
disease;
•Making it possible to get children who can be donors to a sick
sybling
The inclusive society
•The buzzword of political correctness
•Similar to: inclusive school (advancement of knowledge: ”together
with others, to help others”), inclusive work life (especially inclusion of
the (physically) disabled), the colourful society (esp. immigrants etc.)
•But sorting is done
•School: adjusted learning, differentiated levels: sorting on the basis
of individual success of aquiring knowledge; excellence to non-
achievers
We have sorted for a long time
•Prenatal diagnostics (allows for selection)
•Abortion on demand (allows for selection)
•IVF practice allows for selection (some better than others)
•IVF practice ”gives” spare embryos (after time must be
discarded)
The sorting society: association and claim
1. The eugenic movement and practices in the last century: of
negative and positive selection, including discarding life not
worth living.
2. The sorting of goods, first class, second class, first hand,
second hand, first rate, second rate – clothing, glass, food
Claim: ”the sorting society in full breadth” (Dåvøy)
Counter claim: sorting is a myth (Saugstad)
Not a question of either - or
•Difference: no societal force, only individual choices
•Difference: selection replaced by choice
•Society permits choices, sometimes even guarantee them (abortion
on demand), and it also supports institutions to do the ”work”
•The choices of individuals have consequences for ”others” than
themselves, choices are not ”private”, regardless of how we assess the
moral status of ”others”
•= the dilemma of the liberal state
Result
•Some types of sorting is permitted by law: negative: by
discarding (abortion, ”surplus” embryos); positive: by avoiding
or selecting as a result of diagnostics (e.g. for compatibility for
donation).
• Up to individuals to choose: about 250 selective abortions
per year, 15000 ”regular” abortions (numbers not increased
since abortion on demand from 1975)
Rhetoric of suspicion
•Labor party: The accusation of the sorting society should ”in
reality” be understood as a move to also change the Act on
Abortion; underlying motive: change the law: hypocritical
•Christian Democrats: The liberal act and the defense of
autonomy will lead to a ”sorting society without ”the benefit for
everyone (in an inclusive society): underlying motive: accept
consequences without saying: cynical
Rhetorics risky business
•Persuasion hinges on credibility
•Credibility: ethos: trust character, person
•Credibility: argumentatio: admission of dilemma, arguments
against and ability to refute them (refutatio)
•The rhetoric of the sorting society ”lost”, claims grossly
exaggerated (the grave consequences not seen), wasn’t able to
defend autonomous choice, doubted credibility (re abortion)
The new ”positive” choices
Lee M. Silver: Remaking Eden; Gregory Stock: Redesigning Humans
•Seven new techniques all based on IVF: 1) choice of donor
and/or egg, 2) screening of semen and/or egg, 3) PID of
embryos, 4) ”Control” of embryo genome (chips), 5)
Modification of embryo (gene therapy), 6) Enhancement of
embryos (synthetic genes, extra chromosomes), 7) Cloning of
adult stem cells
Scientific oversale
•Promises too much, cannot deliver reliable technology (e.g.
gene therapy, Hwang Woo-Suk)
•Presupposes the same preferences and choices (do-it-
yourself eugenics and GenRich), but what (empirical support do
any one have for that: what if ”no harm” is stronger than ”do
better”
The will of society
•Liberal view: gives possibilities for freedom of choice
•But: it is also conscious political choices: prenatal
diagnostics: reduce number of Down’s syndrome to half of
today’s prevalence (1977); Establishement of National Center
for Fetal Medicine which goal it is to detect anomalies before
week 12 (2001), choices ”moduled” on what the society
accepts, favors, motivates and so forth
Voluntary choice of individuals
•How ”voluntary” is it?
•Support systems favor the ”established”: very little when you
are young, no employment, education, no partner
•Weak support systems for those who take care of disabled
•Raises questions of degree of voluntariness
•If it were me?
The rhetoric of spare parts
•PID and sybling compatibility
•Humans used as spare parts, (only) as a means to an end
•Implication: when used it will be discarded
•Not the case: diagnostics on an embryonic level, selection of
embryo, if succeed, then can be a donor
•Small intervention, negligable risk, ”spare part” even
renewable?
Analogy of spare parts
•Transplantation from living (not renewable, greater risk)
•Transplantation of other spare parts: heart valve, and so forth
•Brain prosthesis for stroke patients: biological and artificial
hippocampus, silicon chip implant to replace damaged part of
the brain
The right to unique genetic identity
•EU Additional Protocol: prohibition against creating ”genetically
identical” human beings, sharing with another the same nuclear gene
set (article 1, 1-2).
•Based on (rhetorical) fear of creating (perfect) copies? (Einsteins
and Adams)
•But isn’t it based on unsubstantiated presuppositions?
•Though genetically identical, the clone will not be identical in other
respects: doesn’t it rest on genetic determinism: ”we are our genes”
Much more than our genes
•Identity much more than identical nuclear gene set
•Basic flaw: life of a clone will be governed by the genes only
•Pro: recreate, replace e.g. a dead child (case of Dr. Boisseliers: ”to
bring back” a diseased 10 months old boy); used to be very common:
Lisbeth Cathrine, born 1740, died 1741; replaced by Lisbeth Cathrine,
born 1742, personality, features, individuality and identity in her own
right. Allows for getting a child who is genetically related to one of the
parents
Against
•Technique not safe, cannot (yet) deliver what it promises
•Replacement, is it moral?
•Unique genetic identity, what about identical twins:
differences: clone is older, clone ”replaces”, identity not
determined, with autonomous life choices, but psychological
problem?
•Auch ein Klon ist frei geboren!
Takk!e-post adresse