Dr. Schaub: The cloning of human beings would be the triumph of the Machiavellian project to conquer fortune and bring everything within the power of human choice and calculation…It shows how human dignity is bound up with the lottery of nature and how the ground of human dignity could be imperiled by an attempt to extend human controls over the human essence.
In talking of the complexity and difficulty of the bioethical enterprise, chairman Kass was, perhaps, being diplomatic…Nonetheless, and with considerable trepidation, I feel I must take issue with the statement.
The trepidation arises because Mr. Kass was my teacher at Chicago and because I believe the nation-at-large is now blessed in having him as their teacher…
Of my teacher, I would like to ask, is it either incorrect or misleading or unhealthful to see the dispute over cloning as of a peace with the slavery crisis and the abortion debate? And, further, if the example of Lincoln is pertinent, then does talk of moral complexity and the intertwinededness of good and evil and the intractability of the issues make it harder to identify evil as evil and more likely that we will end up in “Brave New World?” where despotism masquerades as a conception of the good?
Dr. Kass: Let me say one thing. Diana, I don’t know what to say to you. I mean, it’s one of those wonderful moments where, if I might return a compliment, Leo Strauss’ famous remark that one should always teach as if there were a silent student in the class that was one’s superior in heart and in mind.
I won’t finish the thought, but it’s perfectly clear, Diana, it was, I don’t really know how to answer you…
Dr. Kass:We want to perform better in the activities of life. But do we want to accomplish this by becoming mere creatures of our chemists or by turning ourselves into bionic tools designed to win and achieve in inhuman ways?…We want longer lives. But do we want it at the cost of living carelessly or shallowly with diminished aspiration for living well…
Dr. Schaub: In the course of deepening our understanding of our own desires and of the goods we seek, the report leads us to doubt whether the sorts of biotechnologies that are likely to be developed will really satisfy us, despite the fact that they’re being offered to us as answering certain deeply felt and widely shared human desires and aspirations.
Dr. Lawler: I now have to say what I hope you already know. The case I just gave for conscious, biotechnological mood control only makes sense to those who really believe that we do or will be able to completely understand human consciousness or the human soul. So it doesn?t make much sense to me. And I think this penetrating report would be even more powerful if it were more consistently confident that the mood control project is finally mission impossible-in fact, finally nuts…
Our futile biotechnological pursuit of happy souls will erode still further our experiences of continuity, permanence, love, and friendship- our genuine connections with the world and the human beings around us-that really do moderate our genuinely human experiences of homelessness in this world…So all honor to and God bless Leon Kass for getting government to venture a bit into thinking about the soul.
Dr. Kass: Two additional members are joining the council…Peter Lawler, a distinguished political philosopher and student of American government…
Diana Schaub, a young political scientist and also a student of literature, has written insightfully about the attitudes of the young and the old, a perspective crucial to understanding the way society will confront its aging demographics.
Both are known among their colleagues for their openness to discourse and their devotion to public deliberation and democratic decision-making.
Their personal views on the matters to come before the council in the coming term are completely unknown, but I am confident that they will come to them only as a result of genuine reflection and a full consideration of all the scientific and other evidence.
UPDATE: My former personal secretary reminds me that mere quotations are pallid things compared to a vigorous commentary thereon. I had hoped to let the words speak for themselves, but I am urged to spice things up a bit. Here goes.
The question I’m attempting to illuminate is simply this. Does “His Nibs” ever stretch the truth in what he doubtless perceives to be a good cause? Looks like a big fat yes to me…
Their personal views on the matters to come before the council in the coming term are completely unknown…
After reading the rather fulsome praise (and yet more florid opinion) oozing about the stage at these events, peals of wild laughter would seem to be the most appropriate response. But wait, it gets better. According to the Slate article I linked to above,
The ruckus over changes in the composition of the President’s Council on Bioethics has its roots in a White House meeting that occurred on July 9, 2001. It was during this meeting that President Bush began to formulate his policy on stem-cell research…
Mr. Bush had asked Dr. Kass to bring along someone who had a different viewpoint from his own. He thought Dr. Callahan would have a different view, but as it turned out he too disliked the idea of destroying embryos and had a position similar to Dr. Kass. This apparently made a big impression on Mr. Bush.
As well it should. This would be the same Daniel Callahan who memorably said,
There is no known social good coming from the conquest of death.
Thanks for thinking of us, Dan. As the Slate article notes,
Callahan was a Democrat and former editor of the liberal magazine Commonweal, but it stretches credulity to suggest Kass had no inkling that Callahan, a longtime friend and colleague, would have views on stem cells that were similar to his own.
If memory serves me correctly, Daniel Callahan is singled out in the forward of “Toward A More Natural Science”, originally published in 1985, as being tremendously helpful during the exploration and elaboration of the ideas in the book. Long walks, long talks, that sort of thing. I’ll post the line in its entirety when I get the chance. Here’s more from Slate.
Kass was asked by his commander-in-chief to present a true debate. Even if Kass honestly didn’t know that Callahan would agree with him, it was negligent of him not to find out….The story of the Great Non-Debate goes a long way toward explaining why journalists are unwilling to cut Kass much slack now that his intellectual honesty is being called into question once again.
UPDATE: Here we are. From the preface, pages xii and xiii?
The author of this volume is by rearing a moralist, by education a generalist, by training a physician and a biochemist, by vocation a teacher?and student?of philosophical texts, and by choice a lover of serious conversation, who thinks best by sharing thoughts and speeches with another.
And how. Move it along sir, people are waiting.
Such a fellow incurs many debts?especially regarding a book written over fifteen years?which at this juncture he wishes gratefully to acknowledge.
Right. A list of names worthy of an Academy Award Acceptance Speech follows, for the most part thankfully omitted here, but among whom we find (envelope, please), Dan Callahan?
Dan Callahan and Will Gaylin and my other colleagues at the Hastings Center have provided a warm and lively collegiality and steady invitations to develop and present my own thinking
So by the time of the Great Non-Debate they had known each other for, what, fifteen or sixteen years at the very least? It can be hard to get to know a man in just sixteen years, regardless of the warmth of his collegiality. But still, an accurate surmise or two wouldn?t seem totally unreasonable. Seems unlikely that it was a blind date.