The principal objective of this article is to develop an overtly theological interpretive lens for assessing the ethics of human germ line genetic modification (GGM). In constructing this lens, I draw upon four selected doctrinal or thematic strands: Incarnation, resurrection, procreative mandate, and sin. In turn, I derive four corresponding moral claims: there is no Christian essentialist understanding of the body, the body cannot be perfected, offspring remain a good of marriage, and sin is a universal human disability. In conclusion, (...) I contend that for Christians there are three possible broad options for assessing the ethics of GGM: refusal, endorsement, and ambivalence. In each, I assess the principal strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of the respective theological themes, moral claims, and options. In addition, for the sake of this inquiry I assume that the technologies at issue are safe, efficacious, and do not entail the destruction of embryos or fetuses. (shrink)

China is developing an ethical and sustainable organ donation and procurement system based on voluntary citizen donation. The gift-of-life metaphor has begun to dominate public discussion and education about organ donation. However, ethical and legal problems remain concerning this “gift-of-life” discourse: In what sense are donated organs a “gift-of-life”? What constitutes the ultimate worth of such a gift? On whose authority should organs as a “gift-of-life” be donated? There are no universal answers to these questions; instead, responses must be compatible (...) with local cultural values. This paper argues that from a Confucian point of view, organs should be viewed as a gift from the donor’s family, and that final dispositional authority should also rest with the donor’s family. The worth of such a “gift” rests on the virtue of ren, the origin of which is family love. Ultimately, I will argue that a family-based consent model for deceased organ donation is not merely justified, but morally required in the Chinese cultural context. (shrink)

This paper analyzes the underlying tendencies and attitudes toward reproductive medicine borrowing the Nietzschean concepts of nihilism: “death of God” with secularization; “will to power” with reproductive liberty and technological power; and the race of “supermen” with transhumanism. Medical science has advanced in leaps and bounds. In some way, technical innovations have given us unprecedented power to manipulate the way we reproduce. The indiscriminant use of medical technology is backed by a warped notion of human freedom. With secularization in the (...) West, freedom has taken on greater significance in society, but with a heavy emphasis on individual choices and rights. As technology joins forces with sexual liberty, it is not difficult to understand why the public accepts the latest novelty from the reproductive industry. As a result, many find Catholic teaching behind the times and incomprehensible, if not downright anti-scientific. In fact, this coupling of reproductive liberty (will) with reproductive technology (power) echoes the famous dictum “will to power” Nietzsche predicted would characterize post-modern societies. When liberty becomes absolute and technology unchecked, transhumanism is the logical outcome. As a response to these nihilistic tendencies, the paper will end with a critique drawing from theological insights. (shrink)

I argue here that Weberian disenchantment is manifest in the triumph of instrumental reason and the expansion of analytic enquiry, which now dominates not simply those sciences upon which medicine depends, but medical practice itself. I suggest ways that analytic enquiry, also referred to here as anatomical reasoning, are part of a particular ideology—a way of seeing, speaking about, and inhabiting the world—that often fails to serve the health of patients because it is incapable of “seeing” them in the moral (...) sense described by Iris Murdoch and others. I use the work of James Elkins and Wendell Berry to call for the recovery of a way of seeing the human body as both other and more than an object of scientific enquiry and social control. (shrink)

Why should all human beings have certain rights simply by virtue of being human? One justification is an appeal to religious authority. However, in increasingly secular societies this approach has its limits. An alternative answer is that human rights are justified through human dignity. This paper argues that human rights and human dignity are better separated for three reasons. First, the justification paradox: the concept of human dignity does not solve the justification problem for human rights but rather aggravates it (...) in secular societies. Second, the Kantian cul-de-sac: if human rights were based on Kant’s concept of dignity rather than theist grounds, such rights would lose their universal validity. Third, hazard by association: human dignity is nowadays more controversial than the concept of human rights, especially given unresolved tensions between aspirational dignity and inviolable dignity. In conclusion, proponents of universal human rights will fare better with alternative frameworks to justify human rights rather than relying on the concept of dignity. (shrink)

Why should all human beings have certain rights simply by virtue of being human? One justification is an appeal to religious authority. However, in increasingly secular societies this approach has its limits. An alternative answer is that human rights are justified through human dignity. This paper argues that human rights and human dignity are better separated for three reasons. First, the justification paradox: the concept of human dignity does not solve the justification problem for human rights but rather aggravates it (...) in secular societies. Second, the Kantian cul-de-sac: if human rights were based on Kant's concept of dignity rather than theist grounds, such rights would lose their universal validity. Third, hazard by association: human dignity is nowadays more controversial than the concept of human rights, especially given unresolved tensions between aspirational dignity and inviolable dignity. In conclusion, proponents of universal human rights will fare better with alternative frameworks to justify human rights rather than relying on the concept of dignity. (shrink)

Abstract.This article examines an orientation for thinking theologically and ethically about the cultural pattern of technology and a vision for living responsibly within it. Building upon and joining select insights of philosophers Hans Jonas and Albert Borgmann, I recommend the analytic and evaluative leverage to be gained through development of an integrative biocultural theological anthropology.