the Electric Monk

Does theism or atheism provide the best foundation for human worth and morality? That was the subject of a debate hosted by the Veritas Forum at MIT between well-known atheist philosopher Peter Singer and John Hare, a Christian philosopher from Yale Divinity School. The packed audience watched the intellectuals spar as the existence of God hung in the balance.

Singer based his argument on the claim that human empathy is a product of our evolution as a social mammal–the ability to imagine each other’s feelings was vital to the success of our species. Singer went on to cite the failings of Christians in addressing the pressing issues of poverty and justice, particularly in the developing world. Hare had no satisfying answer to these statements, failing to cite any data that might indicate the importance of charitable giving by those holding Christian beliefs.

Hare based his argument on the claim that only God provides the overall reasoning, justification, and motivation for morality. With sophisticated philosophical wordplay, Hare explained that atheism fails to reconcile the conflicting values of personal self-interest and altruism. However, the sheer clarity–even simplicity–of Singer’s responses made Hare’s elaborate argument appear obscure and off-point.

The debate came to a climax with a question from the audience on what would make each of them switch sides and adopt their opponent’s position. Singer admitted that the problem of evil in a world overseen by a good, all-powerful God stood in the way of his adopting the Christian faith. Echoing the sentiment of 1 Corinthians 15, John Hare stated that if the resurrection were to be shown to be untrue, then his faith would be in vain and he would consider the claims of the atheist position. Singer quickly pursued this point, pressing Hare on how he would respond if irrefutable evidence against the resurrection were found. To the surprise of many, Hare again underscored the fact that the resurrection was an integral part of his Christian faith.

Watch the debate HERE. What do you think? Is atheism or theism the better foundation for human worth and morality?
–Cody Chambers

Next time you walk into a restaurant, don’t even look at the menu. Ask one of the regulars what he thinks the best dish is–you’re far more likely to be pleased with your meal.

This is the basic conclusion of a study led by Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert. They used a speed-dating scenario to test the accuracy of “affective forecasting”–people’s projections about how happy something will make them. The results indicate that when it comes to helpful knowledge about future experiences, less really is more: Women who were given more information about a man they were about to speed-date tended to make less accurate forecasts about how enjoyable the date would turn out. Women with only a tiny bit of info–the rating of the man by his previous date–were significantly better at estimating how satisfied they would walk away feeling. As Gilbert puts it, “If you want to know how much you will enjoy an experience, you are better off knowing how much someone else enjoyed it than knowing anything about the experience itself.” (You can read about the study here and here.) Is this good news, or does this spell big trouble for freedom and liberty?

If you think you know yourself better than anyone, Gilbert’s study should unsettle you at least a bit. An even more bizarre conclusion of the experiment was that participants largely preferred to be “informed” predictors–getting all the information available–even after they learned that it would make them less accurate at predicting their own happiness. (In a certain sense, the information makes them less informed!) They hold that deeply universal belief: “I know what is best for me.” It is a fundamental tenet of liberty, one of Western society’s core principles. People ought to be free to do what they want, our implicit logic goes, because they tend to want the sorts of things that enable them to lead happy, fulfilling lives.

So should we be “outsourcing” our decisions to the wisdom of the crowds? If so, what sort of decisions should we trust to others? Where to eat? What to read? Whom to love? (Hint: you probably outsource far more decisions than you realize.)
–Roland Nadler

Countries such as China and India have prospered with the help of jobs outsourced from the US. When there is an excess of need in one country and an excess of supply in another, both sides benefit–or so goes the economic mantra. But what about the trade of human organs?

There are some obvious problems with organ markets: the potential for coercion, exploitation, and bodily harm to the seller, just to name a few. Vigilant policing in a legalized system could (at least theoretically) keep these harms in check. But according to Nir Eyal, an ethicist at Harvard Medical School, we should consider a more fundamental problem: Organ markets treat the human body as a commodity.

Selling your kidney can yield quick cash, but you may feel shame and humiliation for the rest of your life. Eyal points out that sellers may also experience social stigma from their community, a diminished sense of self esteem, and a sense of victimhood. And for society as a whole, organ markets may compromise human dignity, leading to the view that one group of people are sub-human. (See Europe 1939 – 1945 for possible consequences.)

However, if you believe that global organ markets are not morally acceptable, you have a difficult case to argue. Some 200,000 people are waiting for a kidney transplant–and they are dying by the hour. On the other side, kidney donation is not a life-threatening procedure. You can live a full life with just one kidney. And for the absolute poor of the world–those living on less than $1 per day–the sale of a kidney could lift their entire community out of poverty and save yet more lives from preventable disease.

Can the eventual risks of a global organ market outweigh these benefits? Also, might banning the organ market only drive it underground, resulting in even more harm?

–Daphne Ezer & Kelly Dakin

Josef Fritzel was convicted today and sentenced to life in prison by an Austrian court. Fritzl trapped his own daughter in a basement “dungeon” for 24 years, raping her 3,000 times over a 24-year period. (That works out to about twice a week.) As the BBC notes, “the story of Josef Fritzl has been described as one of the worst cases in Austria’s criminal history.” But is it?

Whoever thinks that Fritzl is even close to the worst criminal in Austrian history clearly hasn’t heard about Heinrich Gross, an Austrian doctor who tortured and killed hundreds of children–not to mention, of course, Austrian painter and memoirist Adolf Hitler. But of course I agree that Fritzl’s crime is horrible. In addition to enslaving and raping his daughter for a quarter century, he admits to letting one of the resulting children die in the dungeon due to illness, rather than seek medical attention and risk being caught.

But what if Fritzl had committed the very same crimes, trapping a stranger rather than his daughter? The aspect of this case that has generated so much attention–and why some consider it “one of the worst cases in Austria’s criminal history”–is that it involves the taboo of incest.

Consider a thought experiment posed by moral philosopher Jonathon Haidt: “Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They  are traveling together in France on summer  vacation from college. One night they are  staying alone in a cabin near the beach.  They decide that it would be interesting and  fun if they tried making love. At very least  it would be a new experience for each of  them. Julie was already taking birth control  pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to  be safe. They both enjoy making love, but  they decide not to do it again. They keep  that night as a special secret, which makes  them feel even closer to each other. What  do you think about that, was it OK for them  to make love?” (PDF file of Haidt’s article.)

What is your answer to Haidt’s question? Is the act of incest, in and of itself, morally wrong?
–John Bohannon

“Professing Ethics at the Universities of Sodom and Gomorrah.” In this provocatively titled talk, Leon Eisenberg, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Medical School, posed an equally provocative question: “What is our responsibility as members of the university community when we observe the university engaged in unethical activity?” Universities have multiple goals–like raising money and remaining independent–he pointed out to the 2009 National Undergraduate Bioethics Conference, so there are bound to be conflicts. But if academics avoid rocking the boat, injustices can fester. Eisenberg told five vignettes in which students or faculty took an ethical stand.

1. Students vs. university–students win. He recounted a case where Baylor college was bribing incoming freshmen to retake their SAT scores in order to boost Baylor’s national ranking. A brave reporter from the student newspaper broke this story and the Baylor administration publicly apologized for its actions.

2. Faculty vs. government–faculty win (at least morally). In 1914, at the beginning of WWI, Albert Einstein became politically active by being one of only a few to sign a letter renouncing the war. This action could have ended his scientific career as it was a full six years before he was awarded the Nobel Prize. History remembers Einstein’s stand.

3. Students vs. society–society wins (sadly). Eisenberg relayed a personal account of his own work with a student group called AIMS–the Association of Interns and Medical Students–while a student at the University of Pennsylvania school of Medicine in the 1940’s. The group was advocating for better working conditions for medical interns and universal access to healthcare. The group became a target of McCarthyism, depicted as socialists, and buried.

4. Students and faculty vs. society–students and faculty win (and so does society). In the mid 1960’s, there was only one “negro” medical student at the University of Pennsylvania and less than 3 percent of all medical students in the US were black–most of them at the two historically black medical schools Howard and Meharry. In 1968, right after the murder of Martin Luther King, the students and faculty at Harvard Medical School advocated for an affirmative action program to increase black enrollment at the school. A committee of 9, including Eisenberg, radically proposed that Harvard admit no fewer than 15 black students the following year. The fear was whether or not there were even 15 black students in the U.S. qualified to attend Harvard Medical School. The administration got behind the students and faculty and made a concerted effort to recruit. Applications from black students went up 6-fold and by 1973, Harvard more than met its goal. Eisenberg proudly announced that Harvard Medical School has now graduated more than 1000 African Americans. “Harvard Medical School used to be all white and gray,” he said. “Now it’s in technicolor.”

5. Students vs. Big Pharma–stay tuned! Eisenberg talked about the current move among Harvard medical students to take on the conflict of interest that exists because of medical faculty members’ ties to pharmaceutical companies. While this issue has been a priority for the American Association of Medical Colleges for some time, Harvard has lagged behind many of other medical schools in weeding out Big Pharma’s influence over teaching, research, and clinical practice at the university.

Students frequently have more power than they realize to make positive changes to their institutions. Why, for example, do you think that China shut down the universities during the 1989 democratic uprisings? Are you putting your future career at risk if you speak out against injustices within your institutions? Absolutely. But, Dr. Eisenberg ended his talk with a challenge to the students in the audience: “If you don’t do it, it won’t happen.”

What do you think are the ethical issues festering on university campuses? What should students and faculty take a stand on that they are currently keeping quiet about?

–Andrea Kalfoglou

After the final dinner of the NUBC conference, Peter Singer spoke about global poverty. (There was a vegan option on the menu, of course.) The world’s most famous bioethicist came full circle to the idea that launched his career. His 1972 article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” challenged readers with the following tale:  You come across a child drowning in a pond. You can easily wade in and save the child, but you will have to sacrifice your brand new expensive shoes. What should you do? “If you just walk on by,” Singer told us last night, “we consider you a monster.” But is that really so different from what you’re doing right now by not helping any of the millions of children around the world dying needlessly of poverty-related illnesses?

Singer has a new book out–The Life You Can Save–and a new strategy for convincing affluent people to help the poor: Encourage everyone to give a very small amount of their disposable income. Singer admits that the amount is far less, according to his theory, than people are morally obliged to give. “But as a utilitarian,” he said, his goal is to obtain the best outcome possible. Ask people to be saints, and only a few will step forward. Ask them to be slightly generous and far more people will give, adding up to a far greater total effect. At the time of this writing, his website lists 1,570 people who have pledged to donate the charity he requests, which is adjusted according to the donater’s income. He even provides a global map of where these generous people reside. (It’s an impressive distribution.)

After the talk, I asked Singer about his wrangle with Stephen Colbert. “For the record, how much of the cost of your book is going to save the world’s poor?” Singer’s answer would have been a good reply to Colbert’s jab. “100% of the profits I receive from the sale of the book go to charity,” he said, adding with a note of disappointment that his share only amounts to about 10% of its $22 price. The rest goes to Random House. Singer tried to convince the publishing company to donate a portion of its profits to charity as well, but they refused.

So for the record, Singer is clearly not a hypocrite. He walks the walk. But I wonder, is he doing the right thing by asking the world to give far less to the poor than they should? Or is it better for a radical leader to stick to his radical message? Imagine if Jesus, instead of telling people to “turn the other cheek” when wronged, said, “Take your revenge, but don’t hit back quite as hard as you usually do.”

Is the world worse off in some way, even if Singer’s pragmatic strategy pays off?

–John Bohannon

Have you ever suggested to a friend, even jokingly, that their favorite baseball or football player was on steroids? Have you ever gotten a positive reaction? The fact is, a lot of people would be very upset at the accusation that their idols were cheaters, as the use of performance enhancing drugs is restricted in athletics. It’s not fair, as the motivation for these restrictions outline, that one person should play better than another because they are taking steroids.

But why does “performance” have to be limited to athletic abilities? Theresa Lii of Brown University doesn’t think so. The off-label use of drugs such as Ritalin and Modafinil, collectively called “nootropics,” is rising. These cognition enhancing drugs are used to stay awake, boost productivity, and increase focus.

Suggest to the same friend that their use of Provigil makes them a cheater, because it’s giving them an extra edge in school or work. What kind of response do you think you would get then?

When do we draw the line between an acceptable performance enhancing drug and an unacceptable one? Do we draw one at all? If the purposes for these drugs aren’t really that different, should the same kind of regulations that are placed on steroids be placed on nootropics?
–Richard Blissett

Face transplantation presents a bioethical dilemma. Like other organ transplants, there is a risk that the body will reject it. To prevent this, patients are placed on immune-suppressing drugs, and often must continue this medication throughout the rest of their life. So face transplantation may lead to a shorter lifespan. But for the few people who so far have undergone the procedure, that is a worthwhile tradeoff.

Mary Rhee from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, presented both the medical and the philosophical/psychological implications of this procedure today during the NUBC conference. On the philosophical/psychological side, the discussion began with the emphasis on the inherent “worth” of the face, in that it is an integral part of human identity. This is one reason why this is such a difficult bioethical issue, as a beneficial procedure that comes with so much baggage.

For some, the benefits far outweigh the loss of years of future life. Consider Isabelle Dinoire, a woman whose face was so severely mangled by a dog attack that she was largely unable to eat, drink, or even talk. Her wounds proved irreparable through the use of conventional reconstructive surgery. Hers is an easy case. But what of people who have facial scars that have no direct effect on their health and functions beyond social interaction?

Face transplantation is an excellent example of a core bioethical question. What is medicine’s purpose, to elongate life or to improve quality of life? Where should the balance be struck?
–Richard Blissett

At the end of his address at the National Undergraduate Bioethics Conference, Dr. Daniel Wikler posed a tough question to the audience. Two people need a liver transplant, one who is blind and one who is not. If there is only one liver available, who should receive the transplant?

According to a global health mantra, the sighted person should receive the transplant. This would amount to progress in global health, a small reduction in the burden of disease: A population of equal size that has one less person suffering from blindness is a healthier population.

Something about this answer feels repugnant, even for many who agree with the logic. There is no clearly desirable outcome in this situation. A human being will die regardless of the decision that is made. When facing such circumstances, perhaps the best we can do is to seek the lesser evil.

How would you decide who gets the liver? Save the blind person or the sighted? Or flip a coin?
–Kavin Sundaram

The field of bioethics is growing. More and more universities are incorporating bioethics into their programs and the exposure of major bioethical issues in the media is now a regular occurrence. Prenatal testing, new life-saving technologies, clinical testing of pharmaceuticals–these are just a few of the bioethical issues that we in the West hear about every day.

But Sarah Alsamarai of Boston College wonders: Are these the most important issues? Sarah emphasized that case-based bioethics often “applies primarily to wealthier, insured communities.” If people feel that both local and global bioethical issues are important, why is there so much focus on what Paul Farmer, American anthropologist and physician at Harvard, calls “quandaries of the fortunate?” The fact is that while there are many public health issues that are discussed within the bioethical community, they are often overtaken and overshadowed by topics that are more “popular” but an impact on far fewer lives–for example, preimplantation genetic testing.

As Sarah repeatedly noted, this tension does not imply that such case-based bioethical issues are not worth attention. Mainstream bioethics issues such as pharmaceutical testing need to be discussed. But collective bioethical issues, such as global health disparities, need to be brought to light. But journalists face the problem of a lack of interest on the part of media consumers.

Is this inequality of attention even something that can be fixed? What’s truly important to us, and what is there to be done about it?
–Richard Blissett