Language, self-referencing and bioethics: Can law mediate between evolution and religion?

Abstract

Summary In the field of bioethics, religious and scientific perspectives generally are in agreement on moral questions such as the value of life. But a profound gulf emerges when it comes to issues related to procreation and death. This paper attempts to analyze the basic assumptions and presuppositions that underlie the bioethical debates surrounding abortion, embryo experimentation and assisted dying. Theistic perspectives are likely to accept the evolution of the physical body, but assert that the uniqueness of human language and the differences between the Homo sapien mind and that of all other animals are not the product of Darwinian selection, but rather the consequence of an ontological lacuna marked by divine intervention. This squarely places the debate about personhood between evolutionary continuity and the creation of an immortal soul connected to the presence of a Deity. The blunt confrontation between these two universes has produced an intractable duality of solitudes in the world of bioethics. It is now widely accepted that animals are conscious, in that they do experience the qualia of sensations such as colour, sound, smell, and pain. They express emotions of fear, anger, affection and grief. It is acknowledged that animal intelligence is manifested in responses to environmental needs, and that their mental processes indicate a sense of selfhood. What then distinguishes the human mind is its unique capacity for self-reflection and meta-consciousness, or consciousness of consciousness, which together form the basis of “personhood”. The capacity for self-reflection is a necessary condition for human language. Unlike animal communication, speech presupposes the subjectivity of dialogue as in “I” and “you”. No human language omits a sign of the self. Historically, the law has formed the focal point in the bioethics divide in contest between prohibition and regulation, versus liberty and free choice. Since individual agency is the foundation of the rule of law, restrictions on choice must be justified in terms of the limitations of rights. Officially, therefore, religious doctrines such as the belief in an immortal soul are kept aside in our secular courts of law, thereby underlining our commitment to the separation of church and state. We often find, nevertheless, that there are discrete attributions through Charters of Rights and Constitutions, to the Deity as the governing force behind the legal system. Almost in all cases, the insertions of religious belief into our Western legal systems are reformulated within the discourse of legal rights. The acute challenges between religious and non religious positions in bioethics normally appear when the “religionists” superimpose their will on the “secularists” about matters that invite prohibition and sanctions. These claims according to religious belief bring passionate debate into the public forum. The conundrums that emerge when we try to use bioethics as a basis for decision making, either in the legislature, in the courts, or indeed within clinical settings, are connected to the fact that in our society, there is a no man's land where agnostic belief systems continue to confuse rather than clarify the presuppositions behind the decisions we make. Because of this, the rule of law remains in a frustrated position. To support the rule of law, we suggest that there is no better principle than that of human dignity and respect for individual right of action to contain a tendency of religion or ideology to compromise the individual “right to choose”.