CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

MARTIN ŠOLC CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ elaborate categorical philosophical systems is to be found in the works of Immanuel Kant. In an attempt to build the morality of a purely autonomous rational agent independent of external factors including his or her own preferences, Kant wrote several formulations of his famous categorical imperative. Since the formulations are to be understood as following parts of a complex Kant’s philosophy, 29 it is not possible to present them all in this paper in any reasonable way. We shall, therefore, only highlight the humanity formula of the categorical imperative, according to which it is unacceptable to act in such a way that we treat humanity, either in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself. 30 While we inevitably treat other persons as means to our ends (e.g. we treat a taxi driver as a mean to get to the place we need), we shall always be aware of their humanity and pay it due respect, or, in other words, treat it as an end in itself. Therefore, if the embryo is a person, embryo-destructive research is always wrong regardless its potential benefits to humanity. A US Senator, Sam Brownback, expressed a purely categorical moral view when he condemned research on ESC because “it is never acceptable to deliberately kill one innocent human being in order to help another.” 31 A Harvard philosopher Michael J. Sandel does not consider an embryo a human being, but he concludes that “(…) if we were persuaded that embryonic stem cell research were tantamount to murder, we would not only ban it but treat it as a grisly form of murder (…).” 32 The stance of many religious groups, including the Catholic Church, combine ontological personalism with categorical moral reasoning in their understanding of the sanctity (and therefore inviolability) of human life. We may find an influential example in the encyclical Evangelium vitae written by Pope John Paul II, in which it is stated that „(any reasons), however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.” 33 Apart from these fundamental moral questions, there is also a lot of particular ethical issues surrounding stem cell research. One of them represents the question of a time limit to which in vitro created embryos shall be allowed to develop: under most jurisdictions today, there applies the 14-day rule, which is however increasingly questioned in the light of new possibilities to keep embryos developing for a longer time than first two weeks. 34 The ever evolving technology creates many new possibilities which raise important ethical questions: we may highlight the perils of creating human-animal chimeras, the creation of synthetic human entities with embryo-like features ( SHEEFSs ), or the future creation of gametes from somatic cells ( in vitro gametogenesis ). In a rapidly developing and very prestigious scientific field, many sensational discoveries has been debunked as overrated or fraudulent. 35 Interesting 29 For a very basic insight into Kant’s moral philosophy, see for example Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Kant’s Moral Philosophy. (7 July 2016.) accessed 9 September 2017. 30 As cited in ibid . 31 As cited in SANDEL, Michael J., The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Harvard University Press, Harvard, p. 106. 32 Ibid. , p. 120. 33 JOHN PAUL II. (1995.) Evangelium vitae. On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life. accessed 9 September 2017. 34 See for example HYUN, Insoo, WILKERSON, Amy, JOHNSTON, Josephine, Embryology policy: Revisit the 14-day rule. Nature. (4 May 2016.) accessed 10 September 2017. 35 See for example COOK, Michael, Book closes on stem cell saga. BioEdge. (20 Debember 2014.)

432