As the holder of a Chair of Philosophy with Special Reference to Ethics in the Biological Sciences, he works at one of the most important interfaces with modern science. What can philosophy contribute to bioethical questions? Does it thereby provide orientation or lose its traditional authority? Do the achievements of the biological sciences demand a “new ethics”? An interview with the philosopher Dieter Sturma.
Does the advance of the biological sciences threaten philosophy’s position as “queen of the sciences”?
I am of the opinion that philosophy and biological science by no means have to do with the same states-of-affairs even where they seem to treat the same objects, as for instance with the human brain. A philosopher is interested in the phenomenal content of states of experience; the bioscientist treats the neuronal side of these processes – he has more to do with events. I would also warn against giving too much prominence to the idea of the “queen of the sciences”. I think that scholarly and scientific disciplines can treat only different aspects of a thing.
But shouldn’t philosophy have a kind of prerogative of interpretation over the results of the biological sciences?
Various disciplines cooperate with each other, as today philosophers and bioscientists cooperate in many areas. In this sense, there is no “queen of the sciences”. But philosophy does have certain advantages, simply because it possesses considerable competence in what we call contextual or general knowledge. In this way philosophy is a discipline of orientation.
And how does it stand with orientation on those points on which the biological sciences provide information that has a normative significance for man’s image of himself?
What points are they supposed to be? I don’t see any information furnished by the biological sciences that has normative significance for philosophy.
For example, bioscientists are in the process of providing evidence on the neuronal level that learned human behavior is reflected in man’s genetic structure, that is, that it is heritable. Wouldn’t this be something that philosophy would have to take into account in its understanding of man?
Take into account, yes. But that wouldn’t be anything which can be regarded as a normative guideline. It has been conjectured for centuries that such dependencies exist. Naturally, something like that influences the image man can have of himself. But in this case it would be something like the following: “Man is dependent on cultural traditions, parts of which he changes and hands on to succeeding generations.” And that isn’t something that follows only from scientific facts. One has to take care in such things: the scientific result has to be distinguished from its interpretation and the subsequent normative inferences.
Must ethics confront the results of the sciences?
Of course. The developments in the life sciences, not only in neuroscience but also in biology altogether, compel us to consider new ethical concepts. Many concepts that we are familiar with from classical ethics are simply not sufficiently refined for this purpose. Bioethics is confronted by new questions that demand a modification of its vocabulary and strategies of argumentation.
Questions that threaten philosophy?
No, questions that are definitely of benefit to philosophy! The challenges of the life sciences have led to philosophy’s being more in demand now than ever before. Which incidentally is also reflected in the professional prospects of the younger generation of philosophers, which have never been so good as they are at present. Many research projects in biomedicine are no longer even implemented without ethical experts. Philosophy has profited from the fact that bioscientists have raised biological questions to which they have themselves no answers.
And what contribution can philosophy make here, quite concretely?
Many errors made in the biosciences have to do with simply having omitted to carry out preliminary epistemological and linguistic clarifications. For example, I am quite amazed that the neurosciences speak so often, whether critically or affirmatively, of the “I” or the “self”. “I” is a metaphor, and philosophers know this. “I” is not an expression for a thing that could be observed. These are epistemological and linguistic-conceptual considerations that are still the domain of philosophy. Beyond this, there are of course normative and ethical examinations to be pursued. An essential element of applied ethics is, for instance, the so-called “prohibition against instrumentalization” that goes back to Rousseau and Kant, according to which persons may not be subjected to complete instrumentalization. That is an established theory which is applied in all bioethical sub-disciplines.
What are the substantive key points that a “new ethics” must take heed of here?
I don’t think much of the idea that we have to create a “new ethics.” The existing approaches are good and only need to be adapted to bioethical questions.
What are then the specific bioethical questions?
Questions about the moral protection of human beings: Does the human organism have the moral status of a person in all its stages of development? Then there is the entire debate about euthanasia. In addition to biomedical questions, there is also the question about nature and its importance. Keyword: bio-diversity. Do we recognize something beyond the human person as morally worthy of protection? “Enhancement” would be another keyword. How far is it morally justifiable to enhance artificially human qualities and capacities, apart from therapeutic purposes? Answers to all these questions must be found above all by philosophy.
So philosophy is “in” again.
Philosophy was never “out”.
Dieter Sturma, born in 1953, is Professor for Philosophy with Special Reference to Ethics in the Biological Sciences at the University of Bonn. He is also director of the Institute for Science and Ethics (Institut für Wissenschaft und Ethik / IWE) and the German Reference Center for Ethics and the Biological Sciences (Deutsches Referenzzentrum für Ethik in den Biowissenschaften / DRZE).
Interview: Volker Maria Neumann
http://www.goethe.de
