Outsourcing butterfly larvae and human embryos
Here are a good pair of articles to get some discussion going of what role evolutionary theory (if any) has to play in our analysis of human ethics. I think I may use them for my class when we get to Nussbaum and modern Kantianism, especially since we’ll have gone through Peter Singer’s arguments by then.
Article 1: “Outsourced Wombs” - American women using Indian women as surrogate mothers for their babies, to the tune of only $6,000 per child (a year’s salary in India, a pittance for surrogacy in the U.S.) .
Article 2: “Butterflies v. Ants“ - Some butterfly species have genetically adapted themselves in such a way that their young mimic ant larvae. They place the caterpillers in ant nests where they are often raised by ants (at the expense of actual ant larvae).
- What is the difference between the two scenarios? The human women are being compensated for their time and effort while the ants are put in danger. Yet our intuition is probably that the first situation is morally repugnant (or at least potentially so) and the second just a matter of “nature.”
- Where is the dividing line? The human species? Then what do we do about human-animal ethical interaction? Capacity to form an intention and make means-ends reasoning?
- At what point can we reflect on traits which we’ve come to by evolution and make rational criticism? Note that rationality itself is an outcome of evolution, so there are no “skyhooks” here, but still no easy answers.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
For the first issue, I think it might be helpful to define what about it is morally repugnant. Is it that the surrogates are from the “third world?” That they are being paid $6000? That they are being paid less than US American surrogates?
Wouldn’t people have difficulty with different aspects of it? I can imagine someone who would be turned off by the very concept of surrogate birth mothers, to the point of not even caring about the economics.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:45 am
I think Hafidha makes a good point about parsing exactly what is repugnant. (And the author of Article 1 makes a good point about it being exceedingly difficult to judge the dilemma of the infertile unless you’ve been there.) My own hesitancy is that we are essentially treating reproduction as a sort of labor (no pun intended) that can be outsourced to another country for far less money. I mean, it worked so well for the rest of the economy….
January 5th, 2008 at 2:30 am
The difference is two fold:
* Animals do what needs to be done to survive as an individual, while humans do what needs to be done to survive as a society.
* Most animals are not aware of the pain they inflict on one another. Humans are keenly aware of the pain they inflict upon one another.
Asking another person to carry your child is fine *IF* that person is doing so of their own free will and is not being taken advantage of. Good question, by the way. Really does get you to think about ethics.
Namaste.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
In his second point, John points at intentionality as part of ethics (animals aren’t aware, humans are). By intentionality, I don’t mean knowing what you are doing, but knowing why you are doing. (Hope that makes sense).
Do you suppose that plays a role in ethics? If, for example, a couple hires a surrogate in India just *because* (assuming there is no apparent reason for this - that it just happens), is this more ethical than a couple who hires a surrogate in India specifically because they know she has fewer legal rights?
January 7th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
@ Hafidha - yes, reasons for doing one’s actions play a major role in ethics. And in fact, that’s part of what I would hope to draw out in comparing the two stories.
Humans, some philosophers think (I have in mind those in the Kantian tradition) do things because human rationality is unique. We cannot act without, in some way “being a law unto ourselves.” And yes, the reason that one hires a surrogate could make a difference between that action being ethical or unethical.
The question, too, is whether ethics can be explained *away* by looking at how it’s evolved from “lower” (less/non-rational) animal species. Some might think so. Genes don’t have “reasons” for being selfish, but they do so in order (metaphorically speaking) to preserve their material. Does it follow that selfishness is then just part and parcel of our existence, and that using surrogate mothers in such a way is no different than the ant/butterfly situation? If it is different, the problem becomes pointing out just where ethics started to come into play.
Anyway, I’m glad to see that the articles sparked some though–hopefully they will in my class, too!