Playing God (ethics)

Playing God refers to someone supposedly taking on the role of God for other purposes, also referred to as apotheosis. Alleged acts of playing God may include, for example, deciding who should live or die in a situation where not everyone can be saved, and the use and development of biotechnologies such as synthetic biology[1] and in vitro fertilisation.[2] Usually the expression is used to invoke a precautionary principle or to suggest that someone should refrain from a controversial action.[3][4]

Philip Ball has argued that "playing God" is a meaningless and dangerous cliché that has no basis in theology; claiming instead, that it was adopted by theocons from the 1931 film version of Frankenstein, and has been used by journalists to refer to things they disagree with.[5] Alexandre Erler, in response to Ball, has argued that while the phrase is not meaningless, it is extremely vague and requires further clarification for it to be useful within the context of an argument.[6]

Description

Playing God is a broad concept, which is encompassed by both theological and scientific topics. When the term is used, it can be used to refer to people who try to exercise great authority and power. It suggests misuse of power and tampering with matters with which the human species should not meddle. However, the hubris of modern science receives this term with open arms as a symbol of success and triumph over nature.

Etymology
The official theatrical of Frankenstein (1931).

The term "playing God" has both a theological and secular sense. The phrase is often used as a counter-argument in science and/or religion. There are many interpretations of the variations of the term "playing God itself". The term has no specific answer and contains a plethora of definitions. An example is the Encyclopaedia separating the term into three broad categories: a developed understanding of natural laws, biomedical, and altering life and directing human evolution.[7] "Playing God" generally refers to someone using their power to make decisions regarding the fate of an individual's life or many lives. The term itself originates from the 1931 film Frankenstein.[5] The studio heavily edited the film and removed a segment from the original cut that had Henry Frankenstein proclaiming, "Now I know what it feels like to be God!" Theologian Paul Ramsey is noted for saying, "Men ought not to play God before they learn to be men, and after they have learned to be men they will not play God." The religious framework of approach to this phrase refers to said religion's deity having a set plan for mankind, therefore man's hubris may lead to the misuse of technology related to sacred life or nature.[8] Other famous literary texts that elude to a man and God complex include Men Like Gods by H. G. Wells and You Shall Be Gods by Erich Fromm.

History
"Creation of the Man" by Prometheus, 4th-c.CE roman sarcophagus. Marble.

Throughout history, many cultures have had stories and mythologies that depict figures that have attempted to deify themselves, whether intentional or unintentional. The famous myth of Prometheus in ancient Greece tells the tale of someone who stole from the Gods and gave to the people, and whilst he was punished for eternity, he was also hailed as a champion of the people. Apart from mythology, many contemporary thinkers, scientists, and books have argued against and for the case of playing God, and why it is necessary or unnecessary for the human race to take on the mantle.

In more modern history, there have been many scientific projects, which have been considered to be attempted acts of playing God. Biomedical projects such as the attempted creation of artificial sperm and the creation of artificial life itself have brought the sci-fi stories of the 1900s out of fantasy and closer to reality. Other projects scientists have attempted include cloning (Dolly the sheep), even bringing back other extinct species that were previously thought to have been lost to time and could possibly be reintroduced to the wild. The fairly recent discovery of DNA has led to scientists toying with the idea that perhaps human genetics could be edited and possibly improved, despite there being opposition regarding unknown and possible dire consequences.

Practices

Bioethics

The most common form of "playing God" in the modern era is attributed to bioethics. Bioethics refers to ethical issues regarding biological science, medicine etc. IVF treatment, abortion, genetic editing, and artificial insemination are a few of the major topics regarding synthetic reproduction. Cloning was the centre of the playing God topic for decades and is still a taboo scientific subject due to this. Nicholas Hartsoeker in 1694 studied sperm under a microscope and the diagram he proposed for what sperm was, a homunculus in the head of the human sperm. A very little human was said to be observed, and this continued an Aristotelian thought that the sperm was in fact, a sacred little person.[9] Rabbis continued to use Hartsoeker's image centuries later attempting to prove that artificial interference with an embryo or birth was murder, destruction of life.[9] Western nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia have made many advances in fields such as IVF, however places like the Far East do not show nearly as much interest in the topic. Eastern philosophy has its own outlook on issues regarding "playing God", such as the Confucianism school of thought.[10] This provides another angle of analysis that can be offered towards this complicated matter.

Nature

Climate and weather is also a factor that scientists have been looking into that humans could control, with terraforming and cities around the world that are made from scratch and planned out including their geography. Geo-engineering is an example of changing the planet that many deem to be unnatural and against God.[11] It involves a large-scale manipulation of our Earth's natural elements such as the seas, skies, or even atmosphere to counteract against certain environmental issues such as climate change. Climate engineering once an invention from science fiction is now very real and part of an international political conversation. More extreme practices of climate engineering include stimulating phytoplankton blooms in the ocean by seeding iron to absorb excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to spraying aerosols in the skies to give clouds the maximum reflectivity and brighten them.[11]

Artificial Intelligence
Deep Blue, a computer similar to this one defeated chess world champion Garry Kasparov in May 1997. It is the first computer to win a match against a world champion. Photo taken at the Computer History Museum.

Artificial intelligence has been a big topic of moral questioning in the 21st century. Many deem our creation of another dimension where the being is sentient and possibly near identical to human intelligence to be an act of playing God.[12] Contrary to bioethics and geo-engineering, artificial intelligence does not physically intervene in nature and its processes. Since the invention of the Internet and complex computing systems and algorithms, artificial intelligence has exponentially improved and is now used in everyday technology. The term "artificial intelligence" contrasts that of natural intelligence, displayed by biological organisms. Major organisations around the world, even including the United Nations have commented regarding the relationship between artificial intelligence and the impact it may have on human lives in a negative way. UN general secretary Guterres noted that AI drone strikes have the capability to possibly go rogue and take lives without human involvement. Other practices of AI can include many other matters, such as Deep Blue, the IBM super computer that is capable of beating grandmasters at chess.

Debate

There is a strong debate regarding morality and consequence for science and playing God. Gene editing is a big topic that has been the centre of argument for decades. Many religious figures believe the notion that life is the fate of God and not to be taken away or synthetically given by man, while some scientists argue that if humans are able to do so then God must have meant it to be.

Genetic Modification

The bioethical debate regarding genetic modification in food and humans has many arguments for and against. In the UK, 4% of the half a million children born have life-affecting genetic defects.[13] This includes genetic diseases that can lead to early death, long-term mental issues, or a lifetime of debilitating physical health problems. Many scientists and supporters of genetic modification argue that DNA is not sacred, and is in fact just chemical sequences in an organism. DNA down to the microscope is just atoms made of elements just like any other living or non-living matter. The University of Pennsylvania in 2016 used mice with a genetic liver disease, and were able to genetically edit the mice at birth so that they did not have this deadly disease.[13] It is also argued that since humans are part of nature, then all actions of humanity are technically natural.[14] A beaver building a dam is considered natural, a bird building a nest is also considered natural, so therefore the activities of humans is also natural and a result of autonomy and free will.[14] This argument deduces that certain animals evolved with special traits to assist with their survival and humans developed the special trait of technological advancement.

A common argument against genetic editing especially that of children is the designer baby argument. Designer babies would be children who have been created to be stronger, smarter, possibly more attractive, and with many other more desirable traits. This would be a technology that would only be accessible to the rich according to opponents of genetic editing and would create a big divide in society between the rich and the poor not only in wealth status but also in physical appearance and physical ability.[13] The non-secular aspect of opposition to genetic modification is the idea that genetic modification and editing is a step further than selective breeding and is area humanity should not trespass. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, strongly opposed genetically modified crops and stated that mixing genetic materials from different species is dangerous and a matter we should not delve into.[14] It is argued that the crucial boundary between humanity's choice and chance is reliant on the spine of ethics and morality; a minor shift in boundary could cause serious harm to the future of society.

Geo-engineering

With climate change, and what some perceive to be a difficulty in international cooperation regarding the matter, scientists in some countries are discussing the possibilities of geo-engineering and how it would help their environment. Many secular and even non-secular individuals advocate against geo-engineering and altering the climate simply because the perceived risks are too great.[14] Due to the lack of understanding from humans regarding the consequences of putting different chemicals into the atmosphere or seeding oceans, opponents of geo-engineering suggest it be abandoned (Hartman, 2017). However, climate scientists who support the geo-engineering idea such as Ken Caldeira of Stanford University, suggest that instead of abandoning the idea due to risk, there should be continued research for the consequences of geo-engineering so that the exact probabilities and effects of consequences are understood.[14] Scientists also argue that geo-engineering in some instances can be cheaper and quite financially feasible however the opposition to this is that it is a mere quick fix and the long road ahead could prove to be disastrous.

Artificial Intelligence

Scientists in the past few years have been attempting to create advanced artificial intelligence that seeks to rival our behaviours and learning capabilities.[15] Google's cat experiment involved a network of computer, which learned the concept of a cat despite the fact it had never been told the semantics of what a cat was nor even syntax. Semantics and syntax are an important factor regarding artificial intelligence because there is a debate over whether machines are purely syntax and just inserted algorithms and codes that require human activity for them to work. Some fear that syntax will evolve into semantics over time and that machines will learn to have feelings and behaviours similar to that of a human. There is a theory that evolvable matter that something considered dead or without emotions is capable of coming to life.[15] This theory hypothesises that non-carbon life could possibly follow the same rules of evolution as humans or any other organism however this has not been tested and is only an idea thus far. There are also many who fear that artificial intelligence will allow for human body modification where parts will be accessible such as a new arm or leg for certain purposes. However, those who support artificial intelligence will argue this is a benefit for society because people with organ diseases for example, will be able to have a new kidney or liver and prosthetic limbs already exist and are widely used by amputees or people born without a limb.[15] The main consensus amongst the anti-artificial intelligence idea is that the more powerful it becomes, the more powerless we are to control it.[12] Those in favour argue that it is there to aid us and it is not necessary for it to eclipse humanity's intelligence and ability.

See also

References
  1. Dabrock, Peter (2009-10-10). "Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge". Systems and Synthetic Biology. 3 (1–4): 47–54. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9028-5. ISSN 1872-5325. PMC 2759421. PMID 19816799.
  2. Macer, D. R. (Jan 1994). "Perception of risks and benefits of in vitro fertilization, genetic engineering and biotechnology". Social Science & Medicine. 38 (1): 23–33. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90296-8. ISSN 0277-9536. PMID 8146712.
  3. Lombrozo, Tania (2019-05-02). "Human Exceptionalism Stifles Progress". Nautilus. Retrieved 2019-05-02.
  4. Waytz, Adam; Young, Liane (2019-04-29). "Aversion to playing God and moral condemnation of technology and science". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 374 (1771): 20180041. doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0041. PMC 6452244. PMID 30852991.
  5. Ball, Philip (2010-05-24). ""Playing God" is a meaningless, dangerous cliché". Prospect Magazine. Retrieved 2020-04-12.
  6. Erler, Alexandre (2010-05-26). "Is "playing God" just a meaningless phrase?". Practical Ethics. Retrieved 2020-04-12.
  7. Peters, Ted. "Playing God". Scholarly Community Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
  8. Meixner, Uwe (March 2019). "Playing God". Religions. 10 (3): 209. doi:10.3390/rel10030209.
  9. Winston, Robert (December 2003). "Playing God?". Nature. 426 (6967): 603. doi:10.1038/426603a. ISSN 1476-4687.
  10. Wong, Pak-Hang (2015). "Confucian Environmental Ethics, Climate Engineering, and the "Playing God" Argument". Zygon. 50 (1): 28–41. doi:10.1111/zygo.12151. ISSN 1467-9744.
  11. Hartman, Laura M. (2017). "Climate Engineering and the Playing God Critique". Ethics & International Affairs. 31 (3): 313–333. doi:10.1017/S0892679417000223. ISSN 0892-6794.
  12. Mizrahi, Moti (2020-01-10). "How to Play the "Playing God" Card". Science and Engineering Ethics. 26 (3): 1445–1461. doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00176-7. ISSN 1471-5546. PMID 31925661. S2CID 210149622.
  13. McFadden, Johnjoe (2016-02-02). "Genetic editing is like playing God – and what's wrong with that? | Johnjoe McFadden". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
  14. Weckert, John (2016). Clarke, Steve; Savulescu, Julian; Coady, Tony; Giubilini, Alberto; Sanyal, Sagar (eds.). Playing God: What is the Problem?. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198754855.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-181635-2.
  15. Basulto, Dominic (2012-06-29). "How we're playing God now". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.