George W. Bush’s Moral Intuitions and his Practical Failure to Realize Them

03/11/2022

[I wrote this for my AP English Language and Composition class]

In his “Remarks on Stem Cell Research,” President George W. Bush calls for Americans to put their attention toward the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Throughout the text, Bush holds the consistent positions of the importance of the ethical over the epistemological and the fact that the possible unethicality present in the issue is the termination of embryo assuming it is a human life. To address the issue at hand, he puts forward a practical solution informed by his moral beliefs. This practical solution is that “we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines” (4, emphasis mine). It is my position that Bush’s framework for analyzing the issue at hand, the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, many of his premises, and his conclusions are all agreeable, but it is Bush’s practical conclusion that is absolutely untenable.

The primacy of the ethical over the epistemological is the primary framing for the issue of embryonic stem cell research that Bush thoroughly lines out throughout his speech, and which I absolutely agree with. Bush first notes this primacy when he says, “Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions” (1, emphasis mine). What this goes to show is the fact that any increase in the importance of epistemology, the study of knowledge, only furthers the importance of ethics, the study of what one ought to do. He repeats this position later when he says, “the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge” (2). Again, what Bush is saying is that as epistemology’s bearing on our thinking becomes heavier, the pressing importance of the ethical presses only harder. In terms of setting up a framework for understanding the issue at hand, the embryonic stem cell research, I absolutely agree with Bush here. Ethics is simply about praxeological alternatives,[1] what one ought to do in the face of two alternatives. That one option is to be taken over another can only be justified by way of ethical analysis. The question of whether we should or should not allow embryonic stem cell research is an inherently moral question. And it is a question begging for an answer. It is Bush’s gleaning eye that sees this.

Having put forward his framework, Bush then analyzes the supremely ethical issue at hand, the moral dilemma of what we ought to do in regards to embryonic stem cell research, in which he forwards many premises I agree and disagree with as well as conclusions I agree with. Bush holds that the “two fundamental questions” that bear the most weight on how we solve this moral dilemma is “[f]irst, are these frozen embryos human life … And second, if they’re going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn’t they be used for the greater good” (2). Bush sees that the first question has great bearing on all thought in regards to these matters due to his theological beliefs, which are the foundations of his ethical beliefs. He says, “I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator” (3). In regards to both his premise, divine commandment, and his conclusion, human life ought to be protected in all cases, I fundamentally disagree. I find myself absolutely disconnected from any idea of God even being, much less God being the basis of my ethical beliefs. On the contrary, I hold that my moral intuitions and my direct acquaintance with them reveals their self-evidently justified nature.[2] What these moral intuitions of mine immediately reveal to me is the fact that what is ethically problematic is not the creation (in vitro fertilization, hereinafter referred to as IVF) and termination (abortion) of embryos “for our convenience,” which Bush finds to be ethically problematic (3). In contrast to Bush, I find nothing intuitively immoral about two partners coming to the process of IVF. Nor do I find anything intuitively immoral about a woman who gets an abortion because she, for example, lacks sufficient financial resources or because her goal of pursuing her career would have to be given up if she gave birth to the child. Rather, what I find intuitively immoral is the creation of human embryos with the intention of utilizing them for scientific research by way of their termination and then use. Now, moving to face the second question, Bush puts forward premises I agree with as well as a conclusion that I find compelling, principled in the sense it is respectable, and, most of all, agreeable. Bush holds that, after learning “scientists have created human embryos solely to experiment on them,” he found such actions “deeply troubling” (3, emphasis mine). Like Bush, I find the aforementioned action of those scientists deeply troubling and abhorrent. He furthers this latter position when he says, “We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts” (3). He concludes that “[e]ven the most noble ends do not justify any means” (3, emphasis mine). Now, in response to this intuitively correct conclusion of Bush’s, those who find the aforementioned actions not at all troubling, our naysayers, will object that the ends actually do justify the means. They will point to Bush’s admission that “research using stem cells [derived from embryos] offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases” (1). They will point to the fact that those “additional embryos” that remain after the process of IVF will “remain frozen in laboratories” where “[s]ome will not survive during storage … [and] others are destroyed” (1). They will then ask, with full confidence, “if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for a good purpose” (2). Now, in order to not hop onto granny’s pony, I must put forward an admission of my inability to respond to the naysayers. Admittedly, I must recognize the fact that there is no reason why my moral intuitions are more valid, justified, true, etc. than their moral intuitions and vice versa. Nor can I accuse the naysayers of requiring justification, for I cannot be directly acquainted with their direct acquaintances which only they have access to. Private justification is just that: private. Nonetheless, I can still ask them why they hold the position that the ends justify the means, though, even when unable to answer my question, they would still be justified in their belief. Now, while I can’t, on the one hand, demonstrate why the naysayers are wrong and/or in a state of contradiction, I can, on the other hand, demonstrate why Bush is wrong and/or in a state of contradiction. It is my assessment that Bush enters into a contradiction in his logical consistency when he brings up his proposed course of action.

Bush’s greatest error in regards to embryonic stem cell research is not contained within his analysis, his framework, his premises, or his conclusions; rather, it is contained in his practical solution to the issue at hand. Bush’s proposed course of action is composed of three components. The first component is as follows: “[Bush] has concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made” (4). In response to this first component, let us, first, look toward the fact that Bush admitted that “[e]ven the most noble ends to not justify the means” (3). Let us further note that Bush has disclosed his moral intuitions to us, those moral intuitions being ones that hold that scientists creating “human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them … is deeply troubling” (3). Furthermore, let us point out that he has repeatedly stated he believes that human life, as well as potential human life, are both something to be preserved and something that comes first when it comes to ethical valuation and action. But, before I can elaborate on why I have this previously stated disagreement with Bush’s practical solution, we must get through the rhetorical fog that is contained in Bush’s language when talking about the first component of his plan. Bush is not at all clear about what he means when he says that the federal government is allowing and funding “these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made” (4). If by life and death decision, Bush means the decision of creating embryos to be killed and then subsequently utilized for scientific research, then he enters into a contradiction, as he is funding the killing of life as the embryos would have only been created and not yet terminated. I think that this interpretation of what Bush is saying is the correct one for two reasons. The first reason I think this latter interpretation of mine is the case is the fact he said, “This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life” (4, emphasis mine). Bush’s use of “further” implies that these embryos have yet to be destroyed in the sense that the destruction that takes place within the existing stem cell lines have yet to be carried out. The second reason I think this is the case is the fact he said the second fundamental question proposed to him was the question “if [these human embryos are] going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn’t they be used for a greater good” (2, emphasis mine). His use of “going to,” again, implies the destruction has yet to happen but is to be carried out. Therefore, I feel my interpretation of the first component of his plan is not only fair but also reasonably justified. Now that I have cleared up this fog, let me, firstly, repeat the fact that he is in a state of contradiction, therefore meaning I have proved the first part of my thesis. Secondly, let me elaborate on the disagreement I hold with Bush. Even if my interpretation of his words is not the case, I still intuitively disagree with Bush. That these living beings can be terminated because “they’re going to be destroyed anyway” is absolutely abhorrent thinking (2). In no way is such thinking justified. The thinking has a clear flaw to it: all of us are going to die. Can I immediately terminate you and then utilize your corpse for science? Obviously, most everyone would intuitively believe that I ought not do such a thing to them. The question to the possible naysayer then is this: “Where is the line?” What special capacity for some special property do we obtain after moving a few inches out of the birth canal that we did not already have just a few hours earlier? Did the fundamental structure of our very individual being change after a few inches and hours? Any claim to such a thing is absolutely absurd! The naysayer can only provide an arbitrary line… Now, let us not forget, though, that Bush put forward two other components of his proposed course of action: “[The U.S. Federal G]overnment will spend $250 million on [the research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma]” and “[Bush] will also name a President’s council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation” (4). I have no disagreement with Bush on either of these components of his proposed course of action. I think that the second component is ethically sound and I believe the third component to be necessary for any genuine solution to ethics violations within the biomedical industry. But, in spite of all my agreement with the latter two components, the first component renders Bush’s proposal absolutely untenable for me as well as for himself by his own standards.

Notes

[1]: Praxeology is the study of human action; for more on praxeology, see Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action (1949).

[2]: For more on the theory of direct acquaintance, see Richard Fumerton’s Metaepistemology and Skepticism (1995).