Human Nature and
Genetic Enhancement
by
Braden Molhoek
Advanced
Professor Mendiola and Professor Gula
Introduction
In contemporary bioethics, religion
is often excluded from any meaningful contribution. The justification for this is that unlike
other methods, religious ethics is founded on faith, and therefore should not
“be allowed into the marketplace of ideas in a tolerant, pluralistic society.”[1] Such an understanding of tolerance, however,
is problematic. Religious tolerance in
The reason that any of this has relevance for ethics, and particular significance regarding the role of religion and religious ethics in public discourse, is because ethical methods in general are based on understandings of the concepts Sulmasy uses in his definition of religion. Sulmasy summarizes this by saying “that every normative ethics (ethos) requires an underlying myth (mythos).”[6] In other words, every ethical system is dependent upon some understanding of the very list of things that Sulmasy identifies above as constitutive of religion or religious-like systems. Even if a system’s understanding is not expressed in religious language, it can still be considered religious in a sense because “[n]one of this comes from logic. It is the stuff of mythology.”[7] Since this is the case, the exclusion of religious ethics or even religious language in public discourse is unfounded. In fact, it is a violation of the “principle of religious tolerance” because it “’establishes’ one set of moral mythologies and unduly limits the ‘free expression’ of the other set.”[8] Religious ethics and language cannot be refused a place at the public table simply because it sounds more religious than other approaches. It has been shown that all ethics are based on assumptions that may not be expressed in explicitly religious vocabulary; however, they are still based on the same kinds of assumptions as approaches that are distinctively religious.
An understanding of human nature that is explicitly religious provides a more complete anthropology than nonreligious understandings and the differences between the two perspectives change the way genetic enhancement is examined. After a briefly explanation of what genetic enhancement is, three understandings of human nature that are not explicitly religious will be examined. Then a Christian perspective of human nature will be synthesized from various sources. This perspective will be compared and contrasted with the nonreligious understandings, emphasizing the differences. Finally, these differences will be applied to the issue of genetic enhancement.
Genetic Enhancement
Genetic enhancement is difficult to define, for several reasons. A broad definition of enhancement “is the directed use of biotechnical power to alter, by direct intervention, not disease processes but the ‘normal’ workings of the human body and psyche, to augment or improve their native capacities and performances.”[9] The first distinction made then, is between enhancement and therapy. Therapy restores health or functioning to a normal level, whereas enhancement improves upon the standard or normal function or ability. This distinction however, is tenuous at best, since “all successful therapies are enhancing, even if not all enhancements enhance by being therapeutic.”[10] Although enhancement and therapy are related closely, they can be separated for this discussion. Examining disease and health is a possible way to reevaluate the relationship between therapy and enhancement, but because space is limited and the focus of this paper is on enhancement and not disease, this question must be set aside.
There is a second distinction commonly made in genetic enhancement, between somatic and germ-line enhancement. Somatic enhancement is “changing the genetic make-up of cells in the body, but not of those cells that will pass the genetic change to future generations.”[11] The focus of somatic enhancement is on the individual, and even if the individual were to reproduce, the changes would not be passed on to the child. Germ-line therapy, on the other hand, would pass changes on to the next generation because it affects “the cells found in the ovaries of a female and the testes of a male that give rise, respectively, to eggs and to sperm.”[12] There are several ways in which somatic cells and germ-line cells could be modified genetically. One example of somatic enhancement “is the use of growth hormone on boys of average or low-average height to make them taller, enhance their status, or make them more desirable as athletes.”[13] Adding or modifying genes can be an example of either somatic or germ-line enhancement, depending on where the modification takes place. A specific example of genetic somatic enhancement also involves human growth hormone. Instead of just giving children HGH, genetic enhancement would use gene therapy to introduce the gene that codes for an above average expression of HGH into their bodies. To make this situation an example of germ-line genetic enhancement, the gene for HGH would be introduced into the germ-line cells. This would not create changes in that particular individual, but the change would be passed on to their offspring.
Modifying humans genetically, however, is not yet possible, for technological and legal reasons. In other words, “[t]he science of enhancement, if it comes at all, will only come later.”[14] Saying this does not invalidate an analysis of genetic enhancement. Instead of trying to catch up with the pace of scientific and technological advances, the possibility of genetic enhancement offers ethics an opportunity to explore the issues without a specific timeline or deadline. Enhancement is also important because the question of what it means to be human is central to both somatic and germ-line enhancement. Analytically, this makes genetic enhancement an ideal issue for comparing understandings which claim to have no religious foundation (although they rely on some mythological assumptions of human nature) with distinctively religious approaches.
“Nonreligious” Understandings of Human Nature
Human nature is very complex, and no one understanding of it is accepted universally. In order to see what Christianity offers that is different from other understandings, at least some attention initially must be given to the latter. Three examples of understandings that are not explicitly religious will be discussed. First of all, Joseph Fletcher’s understanding of human nature will be examined because it establishes a threshold. He describes several things that humans are not and provides a list of requirements needed to be included as part of humanity. The President’s Council on Bioethics examined the issue of genetic enhancement and in their analysis they highlight aspects of human nature that Fletcher does not. The council expands the physical aspect of human nature beyond the mind. While their anthropology is not the only one to highlight the fact that humans change over time, they explore the potential impact different life stages have for an understanding of human nature. The other important aspect of the council’s anthropology is their discussion of the soul. Genetic determinism is the final nonreligious understanding of human nature to be examined. Although genetic determinism is a fallacy, it is probably the most popular of these three understandings. Including and disproving this anthropology challenges the reliance on purely physical understandings of human nature as well as the potential success of genetic enhancement.
Fletcher’s Minimum Qualifications of Humanity
Fletcher starts with a list of positive criteria; they are traits that individuals must possess in order to be considered a human person. With two exceptions, these positive qualifications can be divided into two groups: mental and relational. The first mental qualification is that there must be a minimum level of intelligence. Fletcher defines the absolute minimum at an IQ of twenty.[15] To be considered human, individuals must be self aware and have some self control.[16] Additionally, people must have a sense “of the passage of time”, including some understanding of the past and of a future to come.[17]
The relational qualities are not only traits directed toward other humans, but also society and the environment. The ability to relate to others is the first relational quality. Fletcher defines this ability two ways. The first is being able to form meaningful relationships with people and the second is having a basic understanding of society, since “society is based on culture – that is, on a conscious knowledge of the system and on the exercise in some real measure of either consent or opposition.”[18] The next relational quality is caring about others to some extent; “whether concern for others is disinterested or inspired by enlightened self-interest it seems plain that a conscious extra-ego orientation is a trait of the species; the absence of this ambience is a clinical indication of psychopathology.”[19] The third relational trait is the ability to communicate.[20] Humans must also have some level of control over their existence. While this seems similar to self control, Fletcher appears to expand this trait beyond just mental control, to control over the body and desires. The reason this is relational is because “to the degree that a man lacks control he is not responsible, and to be irresponsible is to be subpersonal.”[21]
The next relational trait involves
potentially everything outside of the individual; this trait is curiosity. Fletcher argues that humans have a thirst for
knowledge and that “[i]ndifference is inhuman.
Man is a learner and a knower as well as a tool maker and user.”[22] Another environmental relational trait is
openness to change. It stands to reason
that if humans are curious and learn, then what is experienced or learned
should lead to some change. This
includes physical, mental, and behavioral changes because “[a]ll human
existence is on a continuum, a matter of becoming.”[23] The final relational trait is achieving a
proper mental balance between reason and emotion. Although this is a mental trait, it belongs
in the relational category because there is no one way to achieve this balance. People “are not ‘coldly’ rational or
cerebral, nor are we merely creatures of feeling and intuition. It is a matter of being both, in different
combinations from one individual to another.”[24] This trait is also connected to the ability
to relate to others, since all humans are a balance of reason and emotion,
different ways of how to balance them are likely part of our cultural knowledge
and it also plays a role in forming relationships.
The balance between reason and emotion is related closely to one of the traits that cannot be classified as either mental or relational. Fletcher calls this trait “idiosyncrasy.” [25] Individuality is another way of saying it. In fact, Fletcher says that “[t]o be a person is to have an identity, to be recognizable and callable by name.”[26] In other words, there is something unique about each individual which in part makes them human. The final positive trait is the most important for Fletcher; in fact, it is “the one all the others are hinged upon.”[27] In order to be human, people must have “[n]eo-cortical function,” without it, “the person is nonexistent.”[28] Ultimately, Fletcher believes that this is the critical positive trait, and if his understanding of humanity had to be reduced to one, this would be it.
Fletcher identifies negative qualifications as well. Instead of traits that humans possess, these are things that humans are not. The first of these is that people “are not non- or anti-artificial.”[29] In fact, Fletcher argues that since humans are curious and creative, that a “baby made artificially, by deliberate and careful contrivance, would be more human than one resulting from sexual roulette – the reproductive mode of the subhuman species.”[30] The second thing that people are not is “essentially parental. People can be fully personal without reproducing.”[31] This is self-explanatory; while a species needs members to reproduce, it does not require all to reproduce. In fact, evolutionary biology is founded on the premise that not all will be able to reproduce. All of this leads to Fletcher’s next qualification, that people are “not essentially sexual.”[32] This is not to say that people cannot be parents or be sexual, but rather they do not have to be. Fletcher asserts that “[s]sexuality, a broader and deeper phenomenon than sex, is of the fullness but not of the essence of man.”[33] In other words, sexuality and parenthood are not requirements of humanity, but often are understood as enriching human experience.
The fourth negative characteristic is that an individual “is not a bundle of rights.”[34] In other words, there is not something outside of human existence that confers a certain status on people. Fletcher believes that the common understanding of human rights is that they “are objective, pre-existent phenomena, not contingent on biological or social relativities . . . as if they were absolute, eternal, intrinsic. But as the law makes plain, all rights are imperfect and may be set aside if human need requires it.”[35] The final thing that a human is not is “a worshipper.”[36] Like sexuality and parenthood, “[f]aith in supernatural realities and attempts to be direct in association with them are choices some human beings make and others do not.”[37] Although the understanding of humanity that Fletcher posits can be considered very controversial, he thoroughly identifies aspects of human nature which many people do hold, whether they articulate it in the same way or not.
The President’s Council on Bioethics
Another understanding of what it means to be human is provided by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Such an understanding is not spelled out comprehensively like Fletcher, but elements of it can be drawn together from their report Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. This analysis occurs on several levels. The first level can be described as a physical or biological level, emphasizing the nature of the human body. The second level focuses more on what it means to be human over time, emphasizing the meaning of life stages and aspirations.
The very fact that people create a distinction between therapy and enhancement, the council argues, is based “on the assumption that there is a natural human ‘whole’ whose healthy functioning is the goal of therapeutic medicine.”[38] This assumption is a false one, because bodies are not stagnant, but exist over time. Time causes change to the body as well; “[t]he healthy body declines and its parts wear out. The sound mind slows down and has trouble remembering things.”[39] The council’s discussion of muscles serves as a bridge between the first and second levels of their analysis of humanity. Muscles have biological importance for humans; they are involved in all of our action. However, this is not the only function that they serve; they play a part in how people see themselves as well. Muscles “also play a role in human attractiveness and in our sense of well-being and even our sense of who we are. Our path through the life cycle is displayed most vividly in the changes of our musculature.”[40] Each of these needs to be examined in at least some detail.
It is obvious that muscles play a role in what is considered attractive, especially in men. Men are often evaluated by society based on their physical strength. Muscle mass is often equated with masculinity.[41] Not only do we judge people’s appearance based on muscles, we also judge their health. Additionally, muscles “make manifest the deep qualities of our character, our dispositions and intentions, our self-discipline, self-development, and self image.”[42] Muscles can be an outward expression of who we are. The generation and maintaining of muscle mass takes time and effort, and doing so shows others that we are capable of taking care of ourselves and are disciplined in what we eat and how we schedule our time. Another way of saying it is that muscles are the physical fruit of a person’s virtues. Finally, muscles often mirror the human life cycle. Muscles start out like humans, undeveloped. Over time, they grow and are strengthened. At certain points in life, like puberty, muscle development is also accelerated, just as growth in general is.[43] For a good portion of life though, muscle is maintained through action. Eventually we “lose the ability to do various physical tasks, sometimes in part, sometimes altogether.”[44] As stated before, such an understanding of muscles serves as a transition from a physical understanding of humans to an understanding over time.
The council argues that different times in humans’ lives have significance. This discussion focuses on two major points in the life cycle, childhood and aging. Both of these are also important in the discussion of enhancement for several reasons. Life span is one aspect of life that is already a goal of enhancement. Similarly, germ-line enhancement and genetic modification of embryos have the goal of enhancing children. Childhood is “not only about school, work, and networking. It is also about leisure, play, and friendship. At no other time in life are these truths more evident – and more realizable – than childhood.”[45] In other words, childhood has meaning beyond just preparing children for the future. Although the intentions of enhancement might be for the future benefit of children, it should not come at the sacrifice of enjoying the opportunities of childhood.[46]
Just as childhood is not about the
future, there is often more to life than what tends to consume people. The council says that “[l]
There is no comprehensive definition of the soul in the council’s work. Instead of classifying the soul in religious terms, it is classified as psychological.[50] This is followed by a list of what the soul entails. It includes the “powers of reason, speech, understanding, intuition, memory, and imagination, as well as of desire, passion and feeling – powers that make us human, powers that we know from the inside that we enjoy (and that dead or inanimate bodies lack).”[51] Surprisingly the list provided by the council is fairly similar to Fletcher’s criteria, although it appears to be more inclusive. These are not generalized attributes only, however, but are also “shaped by our own experiences, aspirations, attachments, achievements, disappointments, and feelings. We mean at once that which makes all of us human and that which makes each of us individually who we are.”[52]
Genetic Determinism
The final non-religious understanding of human nature that will be examined is genetic determinism. Genetic determinism is the idea that instead “of seeing ourselves as determined by external environmental forces, we are gradually seeing ourselves determined by internal biological predispositions.”[53] Specifically, genetic determinism asserts that our genes control who we are. Ted Peters identifies two sides of genetic determinism, the first of which he calls “puppet determinism”.[54] Said simply, humans are just puppets to their genes; it is the genome that controls who people are. The other aspect of genetic determinism, termed “promethean determinism”, has three parts.[55] Scientists are the subjects of the first two parts. They study genes and how they work and how to “develop appropriate technologies based upon this understanding.”[56] The final part of promethean determinism is control. Using the information and technology “we will be able to guide the future evolution of the human race. We will have wrested from nature her secrets, and this will transform us from the determined into the determiners.”[57] Promethean determinism is only possible because of puppet determinism; since everything is controlled genetically, it is possible to understand how this is done and manipulate it.
A simple refutation of genetic determinism can be found by looking at identical twins. Identical twins have the same genetic makeup but have different fingerprints. People also consider identical twins to be separate people, with their own identities. The differences between identical twins are from environmental factors. If there are things that are outside of the control of genes, then it stands to reason that human evolution cannot be controlled by manipulating genes alone. Genetic determinism is a false understanding of human nature, but it is one that is held widely, even if people do not recognize or define their views by this name. Such an understanding is also the most pertinent to the issue of genetic enhancement because even the concept of genetic enhancement assumes some level of determinism and ability to control.
These three understandings of human nature share some common themes but also differ with one another. All three of them form a connection between human nature and human bodies. In other words, humans are naturally embodied creatures and at least part of their identity is found either in their bodies or how they experience their bodies. There is also some agreement that humans change over time and that these changes are significant. Humans are also relational by nature; Fletcher emphasizes the importance of communication and caring for one another and the President’s Council articulates directly that friendship is an active part in at least one stage of life. Each of these understandings, however, places the emphasis of human nature in a different place. Fletcher places the emphasis on individuality and mental capacities. Genetic determinism defines human nature in DNA and gene expression. The President’s Council rejects the notion that we are just biological automatons. Their understanding of the human soul, although it is rooted in psychology and experience, transcends a purely physical understanding of human nature. Overall, these nonreligious understandings of human nature state that humans, while there may be more than just the physical, are embodied relational creatures that change over time.
Christianity and Human Nature
Just as there are many understandings of human nature that claim to not be religious, there are many religious understandings of human nature. Even within a religious tradition, Christianity for example, there are multiple perspectives. For the sake of this discussion, one Christian perspective of human nature will be presented. It is not intended to be a normative or even comprehensive perspective. In fact this perspective is pieced together from multiple places within the Christian tradition. It highlights sources that Christians draw upon when formulating an understanding of human nature, and illustrates how a Christian understanding can interact with genetics. In particular scripture and theology will be used to generate one Christian perspective of human nature.
Biblical Perspectives on Human Nature
In order to understand the Christian myth of the human person, attention must be given to the sources of this myth. Scripture is the first place to turn, because “questions concerning the nature of the human person are not simply a product of the history of philosophical reflection or a focus of contemporary scientific study. For Christians, ‘portraits of human nature’ are also deeply rooted in the biblical traditions of the people of God.”[58] Although it is a source, it would be false to assume that scripture explicitly articulates only one understanding of human nature. It can be assumed, however, that the authors of scripture “worked with an assumed depiction(s) of the human person – sometimes in order to counter competing portraits.”[59] Their assumptions about human nature can be uncovered by examining and analyzing what they say about humans.
Old Testament Anthropology
In the Old Testament, the first mention of humanity comes in the creation narratives. Genesis chapters one and two provide two distinct accounts of creation, each of them contributing to the Hebrew understanding of human nature. In chapter one, referred to by many scholars as the priestly account, humans are created on the sixth day after the animals. However, “the man and the woman in Gen. 1 do not emerge from the depths of the earth; they are completely independently created, without the materials being provided beforehand and without the co-operation of the earth . . . by God’s own personal decision (v. 26).”[60] God’s decision also includes creating humanity, both man and woman, in God’s image or imago dei.[61]
After God creates humans, God addresses and blesses them. It is in addressing and blessing that God “confers on man the office that distinguishes him. Psalm 8.5 understands it as a ‘crowning with glory and honour’. According to the Yahwist too, when the Creator gave created beings over to man, he also gave him responsible tasks (2.12-17) and powers of decisions (2.18-23) within creation.”[62] God tells man and woman to “[b]e fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”[63] Although the blessing seems to be separate from being created in the image of God, Wolff argues that acting out God’s request “is precisely in his function as ruler that he is God’s image.”[64] God’s actions and words establish a number of relationships. These relationships are explored further in the second creation narrative.
The narrative in Genesis chapter two, the Yahwist account, humans are created on the same day as the earth, but before plants and animals. God fashions man from the earth and breathes life into him. The garden is then created, including plants, but man is still alone so God creates the animals. Man names the animals but does not find a suitable companion. God takes a rib from the man and forms woman, with whom man identifies.[65] Although the story is simple, there are four distinct relationships embedded within it. The first of these is man’s (and ultimately humans’) relationship to God. Humanity’s relationship with God in this narrative is one of utter dependence. The description of man’s creation shows “that man receives his form and his life from God. The material of his body is completely and utterly earthly.”[66] Although humans and God are very different because we are created and from the earth, we still have an intimate relationship with God because God is willing to give us life and provide for us.[67]
The second relationship in this narrative is between humans (since woman came from man) and the animals. In the priestly account being created in the image of God is linked to human’s dominion over the rest of creation. Dominion plays two roles in this narrative. God brings the animals to man and allows him to name them. The dominion of the first narrative is present here, but it does more than just establish the relationship between humans and animals. It also reminds humans of their relationship to God. Wolff argues that when humans form relationships with things in the created world, they also enter “objectively into relationship with God, as their Creator, who has apportioned these things.”[68] Another way of saying this is that humans are reminded that God created them in God’s image when they interact, and in this narrative’s model, dominate the rest of creation.
Man’s relationship with woman is the next relationship in the narrative. God does not make woman from the earth, but rather from man. Humans can be understood to be in relationship with one another by their very nature. In other words, humans are social creatures. The final relationship is between humans and the earth. They are created from the earth, and after the fall must work hard in order to receive food from the earth. Finally humans will die and return to the earth. Even though the two creation narratives differ in their details, there are three things they hold in common. The two narratives state that “(a) Man belongs in immediate proximity to the animals. (b) Through the special attention God devotes towards him, man is at the same time unmistakably differentiated from the animals. (c) It is only man and woman together who make up a whole and useful person.”[69] Humans are created around the same time as the animals and are similar to them. However, God chose to create humans in God’s image and interact with us, giving us a status different from animals. Another way of understanding Wolff’s third point is that humans are by their nature relational. They have relationships with each other, God, the animals, and the rest of creation.
The
creation narratives are not the only useful places in the Old Testament to
learn about human nature; the language used to describe humans and how these
words get translated are also helpful sources.
Although there are many words which describe humans and their nature in
the Old Testament, this discussion will focus on the words nepeš and
Turning to lēb, Wolff states that the various forms of lēb are more numerous in the texts than nepeš and that traditionally lēb is translated as heart, even though the original intent was not what is meant by modern use of the word heart.[75] The functions of the heart in the Old Testament are “mental and spiritual in kind.”[76] Most, if not all, of the functions modern society attributes to the brain were understood to be found in the heart. This includes reason as well as emotions. Wolff’s conclusion about the meaning of lēb is that “it undoubtedly embraces the whole range of the physical, the emotional and the intellectual, as well as the functions of the will, yet we must clearly hold on to the fact that the Bible primarily views the heart as the centre of the consciously living man.”[77] Together nepeš and lēb give additional insight into the understanding of human nature presented in Old Testament. Humans are dependent on God, but they know that God acts in the world. There is also more to humans than just their physical appearance; the heart contains what can be known only by God.[78] This is not the entire story when it comes to scripture, however. The New Testament is also a scriptural resource for Christians.
New Testament Anthropology
A large portion of the New Testament is attributed to the writer of Luke-Acts and Paul, so these two authors might offer us the