In this essay, I attempt to provide answers to the following four queries concerning the metaphysics of early human embryogenesis. (1) Following its first cellular fission, is it coherent to claim that one and only one of two “blastomeric” twins of a human zygote is identical with that zygote? (2) Following the fusion of two human pre-embryos, is it coherent to claim that one and only one pre-fusion pre-embryo is identical with that postfusion pre-embryo? (3) Does a live human being (...) come into existence only when its brain comes into existence? (4) At implantation, does a pre-embryo become a mere part of its mother? I argue that either if things have quidditative properties or if criterialism is false, then queries (1) and (2) can be answered in the affirmative; that in light of recent developments in theories of human death and in light of a more “functional” theory of brains, query (3) can be answered in the negative; and that plausible mereological principles require a negative answer to query (4). (shrink)

The process of embryogenesis poses numerous philosophical puzzles. Conceptual difficulties encountered while attempting to clarify the ontological and moral status of the fertilized ovum, for example, are compounded in the minds of some philosophers by the possible occurrence of monozygotic twinning during the earliest stages of embryological development. In light of certain conceptual complexities engendered by this possibility, G.E.M. Anscombe, for example, has come to believe that the pivotal metaphysical query in need of an adequate response is the following: Is (...) the human zygote a single human? The answer to this question is of interest to Anscombe primarily for the role it would play in solving the following puzzle: Suppose that zygote A divides into twins B and B1, such that neither B nor B1 is identical with its twin or with A. It then seems clear that either A, prior to its division, was somehow already B and B1; or A was a single human out of which another human grew ; or A, which was a single human, became two humans, much like an amoeba becomes two amoebae; or A is a "whole human substantial entity". (shrink)

Michael Lockwood has recently concluded that it can be morally permissible to perform potentially damaging non-therapeutic experiments on live human (pre)embryos. The reasons he provides in support of this conclusion commit him inter alia to the following controversial theses: (i) an organism's potential for twinning bears critically on the identity conditions for that organism; and (ii) functionally intact mentality-mediating neurological structures play a critical role in establishing the identity conditions for human organisms. I argue that Lockwood has given us no (...) good reason to endorse either of these theses and, hence, that he has given us no good reason to believe that it can be morally permissible to perform potentially damaging non-therapeutic experiments on live human (pre)embryos. (shrink)

Professor Mark A. Yarhouse proposes an ‘identity synthesis’ model of sexual modification therapy for homosexuals. This model is meant primarily to target the process by which one’s sexual identity is synthesized, rather than the changing of sexual orientation itself. I highlight some of the advantages of Yarhouse’s model along with some of its potential pitfalls. My primary point of departure with Yarhouse concerns how one ought to direct those self-identified homosexual clients who fall within our clinical sphere of influence and (...) who, in the end, contrary to our better judgment, decide that they would like to pursue a course of “homosexualization.” Based on the “autonomy”-emphasizing aspects of the identity synthesis model, it appears that Yarhouse is willing to sanction the referral of certain clients to “therapists” who are willing to facilitate these clients’ homosexualization. I do not believe that Christians involved in the care of homosexuals can licitly participate in such referrals. (shrink)

It is widely believed that (1) if theological determinism were true, in virtue of God’s role in determining created agents to perform evil actions, created agents would be neither free nor morally responsible for their evil actions and God would not be perfectly good; (2) if metaphysical compatibilism were true, the free-will defense against the deductive problem of evil would fail; and (3) on the assumption of metaphysical compatibilism, God could have actualized just any one of those myriad possible worlds (...) that are populated only by compatibilist free creatures. The primary thesis of this essay is that none of these propositions is true. This thesis is defended by appealing to a recently proposed novel, acausal, composite, unified theory of free action – the Theory of Middle Freedom – that evades the central problems plaguing traditional theories of metaphysical compatibilism. (shrink)

In this essay I plan to meet the following four objectives: (i) Show that a commonly made inference by Christian apologists, namely inferring proposition (1) The Mormon Church is polytheistic, from proposition (2) The Mormon Church both appears to believe in the existence of numerous Gods and appears to worship numerous Gods, is an invalid inference; (ii) defend the truth of proposition (2); (iii) reject proposition (i); and (iv) given the cogency of my arguments, attempt as best I can to (...) situate Mormonism on the landscape of contemporary philosophical theology. Far from being polytheists, I shall conclude that in spite of initial appearances Mormons are, in fact, atheists. (shrink)

It is widely believed to be a fundamental tenet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that a plurality of divine beings inhabits the universe. It has often been pointed out, for example, that according to Mormon doctrine Elohim, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct Gods. 1 The traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity is, thereby, unambiguously rejected. In light of this, it has become commonplace among Christian apologists 2 to infer.

Few propositions are so widely affirmed among Christian theists as God is wholly good. We say of God that he is wholly good when we mean to say that God never does evil. One proposed explanation for why God is wholly good, of course, is that God is necessarily good. Although is uncontroversial among Christian theists, clearly does not enjoy such universal favour. Whereas such prominent theists as St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, Alvin Plantinga, and T. V. Morris have defended (...) the truth of, other theists claim to have found good reason to doubt God's necessary goodness. In this paper I will attempt to show that God's goodness is accidental to him. My argument will proceed faithfully along Anselmian lines, i.e. a key premise will concern God conceived of as ‘ the being than which none greater can be conceived’. In addition to this, I will need to activate action-theoretic machinery which will be crucial to the derivation. Rather than detracting from God's greatness, the argument's conclusion, namely God is contingently good, is seen as faithfully articulating one facet of Anselm's core intuition of God as the ‘greatest possible being’. Is God necessarily good? I shall shortly present an argument which gives one good reason to doubt God's necessary goodness. But before I begin, I shall need to develop a backdrop of philosophical theology and action-theoretic machinery from which to suspend the argument in question. (shrink)

THE PRIMARY AIM OF THIS ESSAY is to advance discussion on how best to treat comatose patients. Its principal conclusion will be Some purportedly irreversibly comatose humans ought to be kept alive indefinitely. Of course, merely keeping such patients alive is not how best to treat them. How they are being treated while being kept alive is of paramount importance. Note that is compatible with the truth of All comatose humans ought to be kept alive indefinitely. I shall say nothing (...) more about. It will serve my present purpose if I can adequately defend, where "some" is to be understood in the usual manner, namely, as "at least one." The term "indefinitely," as one might surmise, is meant to convey some unspecified period of time. (shrink)

Knowing, either by the light of natural reason or by the light of Christian revelation, that homosexuality is a disordered condition is not sufficient for its being ethically permissible to direct self-identified homosexual persons toward just any treatment that aims to modify sexual orientation. For example, such an undertaking would be morally impermissible in cases where the available “treatments” are known to be both futile and potentially damaging to persons undertaking them. I, therefore, introduce this edition of Christian Bioethics by (...) reflecting on (a) the position of homosexuality in our current psychiatric nosology, (b) problems with drawing causal inferences from the outcomes of psychotherapy studies, and (c) the advantages and disadvantages of appealing to traditional categories of sexual orientation in this discussion, all with an eye toward more deeply elucidating core ethical concerns involving the intentional psychotherapeutic modification of sexual orientation. (shrink)

The fundamental question I consider is the following: What is it that makes one thing a person and another thing not? I do not provide a complete answer; rather I begin to develop a framework for answering the question. In this essay I do the following: (1) distinguish between the powers possessed by persons and the constitutions of persons, and propose some metaphysical conjectures concerning the relationship between persons' powers and their constitutions; (2) propose for Christians, as well as for (...) others, an hylomorphic soul-body alternative to Cartesianism; (3) highlight some prominent differences between the nature of human persons and the natures of brute animals; and (4) apply this framework for understanding human persons to problems in biomedical ethics concerning the ontological and moral status of human embryos and of the comatose. (shrink)

This essay has two primary theses: (1) we ought to desire libertarian free will if we want to be as good as we can possibly be, and (2) we can be as good as we can possibly be only if we possess libertarian free will. A libertarian free being, in virtue of being able to refrain from evil under certain epistemic conditions, has access to an order of goodness higher than his determined counterpart could possibly have. Libertarian freedom, therefore, is (...) preferable to compatibilist free will mainly in virtue of its role in the making of optimally good people. (shrink)