My first time through Daniel Callahan’s Individual Good and Common Good, I was struck by a comment he made in the analytical virtues section. Callahan suggests that, “the social sciences provide a useful source of insight.” I thought of what Sujatha Raman and Richard Tutton concluded in Life, Science, and Biopower: it seemed to me that their summation was that Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose had over-simplified a much more complex issue or group of interwoven issues. It gave me a little chuckle because I thought: here is Callahan the distinguished and authoritative scientific voice proclaiming that the social sciences can help provide an answer! And then, over there, we have four social scientists disagreeing on the answer and two of them stating that there is no single easy answer! It was a bit amusing until I realized that providing insight does not mean providing an answer to the currant debate over how bioethical concerns should be viewed and explored. The insights provided by the social sciences help to frame the issues and to inform the debate.
One of the main points of Callahan’s article is that he feels the field of bioethics should be interdisciplinary. “No one discipline, whatever its foundation, can claim a privileged place.” I like this idea. Having a firm ideological stance seems like it would trap you into a position where you would not be able to deal effectively with the innumerable potential benefits and detractions of all that is promised in genomics and the life sciences. An interdisciplinary approach leaves you free to take the tools you need from whatever source is best equipped to deal with the nuances of that will arise as we move forward. As Callahan describes it, communitarianism seems particularly well placed to provide a good starting point for the variety of interdisciplinary approaches that could be put into play. The individual ramifications of applying new technologies are important to consider but far more important a question is what effect it will have on the larger population.
I see you too noticed and thought important Callahan's call to the social sciences as contrasted with the internal battle amongst a handful of sociologists, two of whom are particularly influential. You are then right to notice that "an" answer (from sociologists of whatever stripe) is not the point rather what is important are the various "insights" their work may bring to the communitarian table. (Oh, Callahan is not scientific expert; he's an expert and highly regarded philosopher in the field of bioethics.) I needn't say much about your second paragraph; it follows (and follows in clear fashion) from the last sentence of the preceding paragraph. But on another point, after reading more about communitarianism (Brown) what more might you say (even if Brown prefers republicanism in matters of bioethical deliberation) about communitarianism being the "particularly well placed to provide a good starting point...[etc]"n you note in your posting? Does Brown strengthen that conviction? Weaken it? Leave it untouched?
ReplyDeleteI got the feeling that Callahan and Brown were arguing for different goals. Callahan wants Communitarianism to be part of a wider discussion--one which starts with considering how some new advancement or other will effect society as a whole. Whereas it seemed to me as though Brown felt that discussion was beside the point and felt that his Republicanism was the ideal method for considering the political implications of various advancements. I might very well be wrong about this but if I'm not, it leaves me untouched.
ReplyDelete