What you are referring to is a classic dilemma which was recently re-popularized by the author Patrick Tomlinson. It envisions you stumbling onto a fertility clinic which is on fire. In one room is a transportable canister of living embryos, in the other room is a toddler. You can only rescue one.
Choosing to save the embryos runs contrary to our moral intuitions. However, choosing the toddler seems to contradict our philosophical insistence that human embryos are real humans.
This clever dilemma is the fastest way to get a Pro-lifer to start saying some very Pro-Choice things. You may hear an otherwise ardently Pro-Life Christian suddenly say:
“Oh that's tough. I suppose I'll go with the two year-old because he is really alive. He's been born.”Yikes.
The real solution is to make clear what the dilemma actually proves. You can do this by changing the parameters slightly.
For instance, suppose I had to choose between saving five adults versus four adults (none of whom I’ve met). I’m always going to choose the room with more people. The only differentiation between those rooms is population size, so it comes down to a purely numeric decision.
However, suppose I’m in this situation and the second room had my own three children. I’m going to save my kids over the five adult strangers. Why? Because now you’ve introduced a difference between the two rooms which transcends mere quantities. It doesn’t mean the five adults aren’t human – it just means I'm prioritizing my kids in a way which transcends mere numbers.
In the case of the toddler versus the embryos, there is a different set on non-numeric differences. The toddler can actually experience conscious agony and fear. We naturally have more empathy for him/her. So that’s who we'd choose.
But just like how saving my kids over saving the five adults doesn’t mean the adults aren’t human, choosing the toddler over the embryos doesn’t mean the embryos aren’t also human.
No comments:
Post a Comment