A critical assessment of

rhetorical speech in ethical

argumentation regarding

biotechnologyKnut W. Ruyter

Perfect copy?

•Rhetorical question?

•Neues aus dem Copy-Shop (Die Zeit)

•Hungary: reproductive cloning as the pornography of science:

rhetorical claim

•Discussion of copies played a very minor role in Norway,

other than in the form of ”the right to a unique genetic identity”

Rhetorical claims in Norway

•Pro: For the benefit of all in an inclusive society, supported

by: right to unique genetic identity, part of our common Western

heritage. Verbs: create, help

•Contra: The sorting society, supported by: tailor to fit, spare

parts, hunt for deviance. Verbs: produce, instrumentalize,

The purpose of rhetoric

•To persuade or impress (for and against)

•To rouse emotions

Ethos and pathos

•Ethos, build up, construct the character, to bolster credibility

•Pathos. If you want to exploit the feelings you need to know

them – and what triggers people

Metaphors

•To see something similar in something dissimilar

•To find good metaphors are to see similarities

•Good metaphors ”speak” to the senses and builds on

recognition

Examples

•Taken out as a test

•Much greater effect than deductive reasoning

•Two edged: for warning, for imitation

Argumentatio

•Strengthen and weaken (confirmatio – refutatio)

•Mobilize the best arguments

•Must be probable, credible (eikos): the understanding is

recognized in context, to the models (paradeigmata) that the

listeners are familiar with

Tactics, bias and means

•Allow for tactics: exaggerate, downplay

•Biased and slanted: when for a greater purpose

•Allow for means: make ridiculous

The competency of people

•Insight: what the people accept, must also the experts (and

the politicians) accept

Act relating to the application of biotechnology in human medicine, etc.

•12 June 1987, no. 68

•5 August 1994, no. 56

•5 December 2003, no. 100

•Law proposition 2007

Continuous revisions

•The focus on rhetorics

•Very little use of traditional ethical reasoning

•Extensive use of examples (to test)

•Buttressed by warning metaphors

•Result: gradual liberalization

The last revisions

•Permits use of surplus fertilized eggs according to specific

purposes and conditions. One of the purposes is to ”gain new

knowledge for future treatment of serious disease”, allowing for

e.g. therapeutic cloning.

•Permits preimplantation diagnostics, also for donor purposes,

on restricted grounds and according to specific procedures for

approval

Limits

•Not ”produce” fertilized eggs for research = amounts to

”instrumentalization of embryo” (p. 23)

•Prohibition against research on embryos that will change

DNA, apart from embryonic stem cells isolated from the embryo

(p. 33), plus prohibition against return of embryos to a woman

after research.

Rhetorics pro

•”For the benefit of everyone in an inclusive society” (§ 1-1)

•”On the basis of the ethical norms that form part of our

Western cultural heritage” (§ 1-1)

•The right to a unique genetic identity (contra reproductive

cloning)

Rhetorics contra

•”Sorteringssamfunnet”: The sorting society

•Hunt for deviance

•Discard (unwanted, deviant)

•Tailor for fit

•Design for a purpose

•Produce as spare parts

•Looked upon as ”article for everyday use”

”The result”

•The metaphor of the inclusive society was not found credible

•The metaphors of hunting, tailoring, spare parts –found even

less credible, or found wanting

•None able to admit weaknesses in their own metaphor

(refutatio)

•Heaps of pathos, very little emphasis, if any, on ethos

The context

•Alliance between Christian Democrats and The Socialist

Party (the sceptics): same result for very different reasons

•Eurobarometer: changing attitudes towards pro and less

scepticism: the woes didn’t happen

•Øverland og Lone: Live by, live with, live for? Our

biotechnological future

•”Absurd dichotomies” (either selection or prohibition)

An inclusive society

•The purpose of the Act is to ensure that medical

biotechnology are utilised for the benefit of EVERYONE in an

INCLUSIVE society

•In accordance with human dignity, human rights, personal

integrity and without any discrimination on the basis of genetic

constitution, on the basis of ethical norms that form of our

WESTERN CULTURAL HERITAGE

With the purpose of

•Developing knowledge which can help seriously ill patients;

•Helping ”carriers” of genetic disease to get a child without

disease;

•Making it possible to get children who can be donors to a sick

sybling

The inclusive society

•The buzzword of political correctness

•Similar to: inclusive school (advancement of knowledge: ”together

with others, to help others”), inclusive work life (especially inclusion of

the (physically) disabled), the colourful society (esp. immigrants etc.)

•But sorting is done

•School: adjusted learning, differentiated levels: sorting on the basis

of individual success of aquiring knowledge; excellence to non-

achievers

We have sorted for a long time

•Prenatal diagnostics (allows for selection)

•Abortion on demand (allows for selection)

•IVF practice allows for selection (some better than others)

•IVF practice ”gives” spare embryos (after time must be

discarded)

The sorting society: association and claim

1. The eugenic movement and practices in the last century: of

negative and positive selection, including discarding life not

worth living.

2. The sorting of goods, first class, second class, first hand,

second hand, first rate, second rate – clothing, glass, food

Claim: ”the sorting society in full breadth” (Dåvøy)

Counter claim: sorting is a myth (Saugstad)

Not a question of either - or

•Difference: no societal force, only individual choices

•Difference: selection replaced by choice

•Society permits choices, sometimes even guarantee them (abortion

on demand), and it also supports institutions to do the ”work”

•The choices of individuals have consequences for ”others” than

themselves, choices are not ”private”, regardless of how we assess the

moral status of ”others”

•= the dilemma of the liberal state

Result

•Some types of sorting is permitted by law: negative: by

discarding (abortion, ”surplus” embryos); positive: by avoiding

or selecting as a result of diagnostics (e.g. for compatibility for

donation).

• Up to individuals to choose: about 250 selective abortions

per year, 15000 ”regular” abortions (numbers not increased

since abortion on demand from 1975)

Rhetoric of suspicion

•Labor party: The accusation of the sorting society should ”in

reality” be understood as a move to also change the Act on

Abortion; underlying motive: change the law: hypocritical

•Christian Democrats: The liberal act and the defense of

autonomy will lead to a ”sorting society without ”the benefit for

everyone (in an inclusive society): underlying motive: accept

consequences without saying: cynical

Rhetorics risky business

•Persuasion hinges on credibility

•Credibility: ethos: trust character, person

•Credibility: argumentatio: admission of dilemma, arguments

against and ability to refute them (refutatio)

•The rhetoric of the sorting society ”lost”, claims grossly

exaggerated (the grave consequences not seen), wasn’t able to

defend autonomous choice, doubted credibility (re abortion)

The new ”positive” choices

Lee M. Silver: Remaking Eden; Gregory Stock: Redesigning Humans

•Seven new techniques all based on IVF: 1) choice of donor

and/or egg, 2) screening of semen and/or egg, 3) PID of

embryos, 4) ”Control” of embryo genome (chips), 5)

Modification of embryo (gene therapy), 6) Enhancement of

embryos (synthetic genes, extra chromosomes), 7) Cloning of

adult stem cells

Scientific oversale

•Promises too much, cannot deliver reliable technology (e.g.

gene therapy, Hwang Woo-Suk)

•Presupposes the same preferences and choices (do-it-

yourself eugenics and GenRich), but what (empirical support do

any one have for that: what if ”no harm” is stronger than ”do

better”

The will of society

•Liberal view: gives possibilities for freedom of choice

•But: it is also conscious political choices: prenatal

diagnostics: reduce number of Down’s syndrome to half of

today’s prevalence (1977); Establishement of National Center

for Fetal Medicine which goal it is to detect anomalies before

week 12 (2001), choices ”moduled” on what the society

accepts, favors, motivates and so forth

Voluntary choice of individuals

•How ”voluntary” is it?

•Support systems favor the ”established”: very little when you

are young, no employment, education, no partner

•Weak support systems for those who take care of disabled

•Raises questions of degree of voluntariness

•If it were me?

The rhetoric of spare parts

•PID and sybling compatibility

•Humans used as spare parts, (only) as a means to an end

•Implication: when used it will be discarded

•Not the case: diagnostics on an embryonic level, selection of

embryo, if succeed, then can be a donor

•Small intervention, negligable risk, ”spare part” even

renewable?

Analogy of spare parts

•Transplantation from living (not renewable, greater risk)

•Transplantation of other spare parts: heart valve, and so forth

•Brain prosthesis for stroke patients: biological and artificial

hippocampus, silicon chip implant to replace damaged part of

the brain

The right to unique genetic identity

•EU Additional Protocol: prohibition against creating ”genetically

identical” human beings, sharing with another the same nuclear gene

set (article 1, 1-2).

•Based on (rhetorical) fear of creating (perfect) copies? (Einsteins

and Adams)

•But isn’t it based on unsubstantiated presuppositions?

•Though genetically identical, the clone will not be identical in other

respects: doesn’t it rest on genetic determinism: ”we are our genes”

Much more than our genes

•Identity much more than identical nuclear gene set

•Basic flaw: life of a clone will be governed by the genes only

•Pro: recreate, replace e.g. a dead child (case of Dr. Boisseliers: ”to

bring back” a diseased 10 months old boy); used to be very common:

Lisbeth Cathrine, born 1740, died 1741; replaced by Lisbeth Cathrine,

born 1742, personality, features, individuality and identity in her own

right. Allows for getting a child who is genetically related to one of the

parents

Against

•Technique not safe, cannot (yet) deliver what it promises

•Replacement, is it moral?

•Unique genetic identity, what about identical twins:

differences: clone is older, clone ”replaces”, identity not

determined, with autonomous life choices, but psychological

problem?

•Auch ein Klon ist frei geboren!

Takk!e-post adresse