On the moral status of humanized chimeras and the concept of human dignity

Abstract: Recent advances in the technology of creating chimeras have evoked controversy in policy debates. At centre of controversy is the fear that a substantial contribution of human cells or genes in crucial areas of the animal’s body may at some point render the animal more humanlike than any other animals we know today. Authors who have commented on or contributed to policy debates specify that chimeras which would be too humanlike would have an altered moral status and threaten our notion of ‘human dignity’. This setting offers a productive opportunity to test the notion of human dignity and to emphasize some of its weaknesses as an ethical tool. Limiting chimerism experiments on the basis of whether or not it undermines or challenges human dignity implies a clear demarcation of those characteristics which are typically, and importantly, human. Evidence of our evolutionary ties and behavioral similarities with other animals seem to annul all attempts to define the uniquely human properties to which human dignity may be attributed. Hence, it has been suggested that the particular moral status associated with humans cannot be explained for beyond an intuitive basis. In what follows, we will argue that the difficulties inherent in the notion of human dignity lie not in the impossibility to acquire a list of properties which are unique to humans, but rather in the difficulty to demonstrate the moral relevance of these properties, and particularly the relevance of their being human. We offer an alternative interpretation of the concept of dignity which is not necessarily related to being human.

The paper can be downloaded here.

... Complete entry

Posted by  on  07/06  at  07:16 AM

Hello An! Although my comment may not be germaine to your particular line of thought, I would argue that the moral disposition of Chimeras cannot be considered germaine either. Why? To be "human" one has to have an immortal soul. An immortal soul is given by God at the moment of conception between a man and a woman. In vitro conception still counts but is illicit. Cloning and the approach used to make Chimeras do not have a moment of conception. Teleologically, the purpose of making clones and chimeras is violated. Therefore, the process is outside of the Natural and Moral Law. Therefore, clones and chimeras are not human. They have an animated existance that ends at the moment of death. Sure, the existance of an immortal soul cannot be proven. However, like the belief in an afterlife, the belief in the existance of an immortal soul has been virtually a universal experience. It is and has been a closely held belief since man was created.

Posted by  on  07/06  at  01:18 PM

I would bet that this type of thing has been going on for longer than most people realize. It is, I believe, an abonimation that will cause even more damage that was done with the genetically altered food supply. Instead of "fixing " what is perfect, spend some time on real issues of improvement.

Posted by  on  07/06  at  03:29 PM

What will be accomplished towards the highest good for the world with this impulse to play god and re-create in accordance with our own desires and selfish motives? Because one can do something, is this a reason for actually doing it? Our experimentation with life forms will have unpleasant, painful and unnecessary ramifications for all of us. Why is our society so willing to give the green light to persons driven by their own egos and need for experimentation? Why are we so afraid to set limits when limits are so necessary in order to prevent the "Dr. Jekel, Mr. Hyde" plans that people with ill formed consciences wish to create? The "highest good" seems to be far from the minds of those who make decisions on behalf of the majority. We need to return to the drawing board of decisions based upon love for our fellow l00% human beings, good stewardship for what we have been blessed with in terms of plants and animals, and return hastily to decisions that are rooted in what is known to be simple "common sense". Science alone should never be the sole criteria for decisions that can affect the entire world, nor should it ever be. Do lets come off our high horses and reflect humbly upon the wisdom and truth in the following statement..."one cannot alter a flower without stirring a star".

Posted by  on  07/06  at  04:57 PM

In the course of "human" events, where would the soul come from if man were to interfere with the human genetics in the animal world or vice-versa? Would God automatically breathe a soul into one of these human-animals? I think not! This might be the reason to end man's scientific exploration, and, in the case of scientific experiment, God instead, will let man know that He is in control. We are in for a great chastisement and God Alone, will be the author of Life. This is not a new theory, this is fact. Np scientist can outwit or outdo the work of the Creator.

Please enter the word you see in the image below: