ethics – Pat Answers Archives

Japan approves first human-animal embryo experiments

Human–animal hybrid embryos have been made in countries such as the United States, but never brought to term. Although the country allows this kind of research, the National Institutes of Health has had a moratorium on funding such work since 2015.

Until March, Japan explicitly forbade the growth of animal embryos containing human cells beyond 14 days or the transplant of such embryos into a surrogate uterus. That month, Japan’s education and science ministry issued new guidelines allowing the creation of human–animal embryos that can be transplanted into surrogate animals and brought to term.

The ultimate aim of the research is to use animals, such as pigs, to grow organs that can be transplanted into humans. The relaxed regulations would allow Hiromitsu Nakauchi, a stem-cell biologist at Stanford University in California and the University of Tokyo, to pursue experiments in Japan that he has planned for more than a decade, pending ethical approval. Nakauchi has created pig embryos that are genetically altered so that they cannot produce a pancreas, and he plans to insert induced pluripotent stem cells into the embryos. These cells are obtained by reprogramming human cells so that they revert to an embryonic-like state from which they can form other cell types. The hope is that the stem cells will develop into a pancreas composed mainly of human cells as the embryo develops.

Hiromitsu Nakauchi, who leads teams at the University of Tokyo and Stanford University in California, also plans to grow human cells in mouse and rat embryos and then transplant those embryos into surrogate animals. Nakauchi’s ultimate goal is to produce animals with organs made of human cells that can, eventually, be transplanted into people.

A team led by developmental biologist Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, used CRISPR gene-editing technology to create mouse embryos without the genes that cause organs to form. The scientists then injected rat stem cells into the mouse embryos and implanted the embryos into a mouse’s uterus.

Now for a little history lesson.

Unit 731 was set up in 1938 in Japanese-occupied China with the aim of developing biological weapons. It also operated a secret research and experimental school in Shinjuku, central Tokyo. Its head was Lieutenant Shiro Ishii.

The unit was supported by Japanese universities and medical schools which supplied doctors and research staff.

For 40 years, the horrific activities of “Unit 731” remained one the most closely guarded secrets of World War II. It was not until 1984 that Japan acknowledged what it had long denied – vile experiments on humans conducted by the unit in preparation for germ warfare.

Deliberately infected with plague, anthrax, cholera and other pathogens, an estimated 3,000 of enemy soldiers and civilians were used as guinea pigs. Some of the more horrific experiments included vivisection without anesthesia and pressure chambers to see how much a human could take before his eyes popped out.

It is said that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It is possible that there are enough safeguards in place to prevent unethical practices in this research, but two questions remain; “Unit 731 has been active for the last 75 years do they now have legitimacy” and; “I wonder where they are going to get the “surrogate uterus”?

It seems as though the only lessons we have learned from history is that we have not learned any lessons from history.

Mercy and Grace

“For children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.” -G.K. Chesterton

Mercy (Middle English, from Anglo-French merci, from Medieval Latin merced-, merces, from Latin, “price paid, wages”, from merc-, merxi “merchandise”) is benevolence, forgiveness, and kindness in a variety of ethical, religious, social, and legal contexts.

The concept of a merciful God appears in various religions, including Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Performing acts of mercy as a component of religious beliefs is also emphasized through actions such as the giving of alms, and care for the sick.

“Mercy” can be defined as “compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one’s power”; and also “a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion.”

Hebrews 4:16 says, “So let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and to find grace for timely help.” Grace and mercy are similar in that both are free gifts of God and both are dispensed absent any merit on the part of the recipient. Grace is the favor of God, a divine assistance. Grace is what one receives that they do not deserve while mercy is what one receives when they do not get that which they deserve.

“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” – 1Peter 2:9-10

In Islam the title “Most Merciful” (al-Rahman) is one of the names of Allah and Compassionate (al-Rahim), is the most common name occurring in the Quran. Rahman and Rahim both derive from the root Rahmat, which refers to tenderness and benevolence.

The Hebrew word for mercy is Rachamim which is always in plural form so that it literally means “mercies”. “Mercy includes showing kindness to those who don’t deserve it, and forgiving those that deserve punishment.” Mercy is one of the defining characteristics of God. Exodus 34:6 says: “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.”

“For children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.” ―G.K. Chesterton

Shekhinah

“Whenever ten are gathered for prayer, there the Shekhinah rests.”

The Shekhinah (Biblical Hebrew: שכינה‎ šekīnah; also Romanized Shekina(h), Schechina(h), Shechina(h)) is the English transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning “dwelling” or “settling” and denotes the dwelling or settling of the divine presence of God. This term does not occur in the Bible, and is from rabbinic literature.

In classic Jewish thought, the shekhinah refers to a dwelling or settling in a special sense, a dwelling or settling of divine presence, to the effect that, while in proximity to the shekhinah, the connection to God is more readily perceivable.

The shekhinah represents the feminine attributes of the presence of God,shekhinah being a feminine word in Hebrew, based especially on readings of the Talmud.

The prophets made numerous references to visions of the presence of God, particularly in the context of the Tabernacle or Temple, with figures such as thrones or robes filling the Sanctuary. These visions have traditionally been attributed to the presence of the shekhinah.

The shekhinah is referred to as manifest in the Tabernacle and the Temple in Jerusalem throughout rabbinic literature.

It is also reported as being present in other contexts:

While a person (or people) study Torah, the Shekhinah is among them.
“Whenever ten are gathered for prayer, there the Shekhinah rests.”
“When three sit as judges, the Shekhinah is with them.”
Cases of personal need: “The Shekhinah dwells over the headside of the sick man’s bed”, “Wheresoever they were exiled, the Shekhinah went with them.”
“A man and woman – if they merit, the Shekhinah is between them. If not, fire consumes them.” According to one interpretation of this source, the Shekhinah is the highest of six types of holy fire. When a married couple is worthy of this manifestation, all other types of fire are consumed by it.

The Talmud states that “the Shekhinah rests on man neither through gloom, nor through sloth, nor through frivolity, nor through levity, nor through talk, nor through idle chatter, but only through a matter of joy in connection with a mitzvah.*

* Hebrew mitzvah, as with English “commandment”, refers to a moral deed performed within a religious duty. As such, the term mitzvah has also come to express an individual act of human kindness in keeping with the law. The expression includes a sense of heartfelt sentiment beyond mere legal duty, as “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). The tertiary meaning of mitzvah also refers to the fulfillment of a mitzvah

Loyalty-Fidelity

“our ancient Brethren worshiped a deity under the name of Fides or Fidelity, which was sometimes represented by two right hands joined, and sometimes by two human figures holding each other by the right hands. “

Loyalty-Fidelity, in general use, is a devotion and faithfulness to a nation, cause, philosophy, country, group, or person. 1375–1425; late Middle English fidelite (< Middle French) < Latin fidēlitās, equivalent to fidēli- (stem of fidēlis loyal, equivalent to fidē(s) faith + -lis adj. suffix) + -tās -ty

Fides (Latin: Fidēs) was the goddess of trust and bona fides (good faith) in Roman paganism. it is said that “our ancient Brethren worshiped a deity under the name of Fides or Fidelity, which was sometimes represented by two right hands joined, and sometimes by two human figures holding each other by the right hands.” Her priests were covered by a white veil as a symbol of purity which should characterize Fidelity. No victims were slain on her altars, and no offerings made to her except flowers, wine, and incense. Her statues were represented clothed in white mantles, with a key in her hand and a dog at her feet. The virtue of Fidelity is, however, frequently symbolized in ancient medals by a heart in an open hand, but more usually by two right hands clasped. She was one of the original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is required for “honor and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome.”. Fides also means reliability, “reliability between two parties, which is always reciprocal.” and “bedrock of relations between people and their communities”, and then it was turned into to an Roman deity and from which we gain the English word, ‘fidelity.’.

The Roman deity may have example in Regulus “who refuses to save himself at the expense of the Republic. Regulus defied his own best interests for those of his country. In this act alone, he acted with fides.”

She was also worshipped under the name Fides Publica Populi Romani (“Public (or Common) Trust of the Roman People”).

In the Gospel of Matthew 6:24, Jesus states, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon”. This relates to the authority of a master over his servants (as per Ephesians 6:5), who, according to Biblical law, owe undivided loyalty to their master (as per Leviticus 25:44–46). On the other hand, the “Render unto Caesar” of the synoptic gospels acknowledges the possibility of distinct loyalties (secular and religious) without conflict, but if loyalty to man conflicts with loyalty to God, the latter takes precedence.

The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition defines loyalty as “allegiance to the sovereign or established government of one’s country” and also “personal devotion and reverence to the sovereign and royal family”. It traces the word “loyalty” to the 15th century, noting that then it primarily referred to fidelity in service, in love, or to an oath that one has made. The meaning that the Britannica gives as primary, it attributes to a shift during the 16th century, noting that the origin of the word is in the Old French “loialte”, that is in turn rooted in the Latin “lex”, meaning “law”. One who is loyal, in the feudal sense of fealty, is one who is lawful (as opposed to an outlaw), who has full legal rights as a consequence of faithful allegiance to a feudal lord.

Often cited as one of the many virtues of Confucianism, means to do the best you can do for others.

“Loyalty” is the most important and frequently emphasized virtue in Bushido. In combination with six other virtues, which are Righteousness (義 gi?), Courage (勇 yū?), Benevolence, (仁 jin?), Respect (礼 rei?), Sincerity (誠 makoto?), and Honor (名誉 meiyo?), it formed the Bushido code: “It is somehow implanted in their chromosomal makeup to be loyal”.

Loyalty to duty. It is this which the story teaches us, and my readers may be interested to know that the same theme is taught in the Mahabarata, in the legend of the Last Journey of Yudisthira, which relates how he goes on a long journey which ultimately ends at the gates of Heaven. There he is told that he is welcome, but his dog, who has followed him, cannot enter Heaven, for Heaven is not the place for dogs. Whereupon the Indian king replies that the dog has followed him loyally throughout his lone, weary journey, and that to forsake a friend is as vile as to commit a murder. Rather than do such a foul deed he is prepared to give up all hope of Heaven. Immediately on his utterance of these words the dog changes form and stands beside him as Dharma, the god of Duty, and he enters into heaven.

Charity-love (agape)

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Charity/Love/Agape (Ancient Greek ἀγάπη, agapē) is a Greco-Christian term referring to love, “the highest form of love, charity” and “the love of God for man and of man for God”. The word is not to be confused with philia, brotherly love, or philautia, self-love, as it embraces a universal, unconditional love that transcends and persists regardless of circumstance. It goes beyond just the emotions to the extent of seeking the best for others. The noun form first occurs in the Septuagint, but the verb form goes as far back as Homer, translated literally as affection, as in “greet with affection” and “show affection for the dead”. Other ancient authors have used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity, in contrast to eros (an affection of a sexual nature).

The Greeks had a word, charisma, meaning a gift, and a number of words from the same root, variously suggesting rejoicing, gladness. The Latins had a similar word, carus, and meaning dear, possibly connected with am or, signifying love. From these roots came “grace,” meaning a free, unbought gift, as in the theological phrase, “the grace of God,” and “charity.” Strictly speaking, charity is an act done freely, and spontaneously out of friendship, not as a civic duty and grudgingly, as is sometimes the case in public charity.

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing” (First Corinthians 13:1-2).

The apostle, in comparing it with faith and hope, calls it the greatest of the three. We must not fall into the too common error that charity is only that sentiment of commiseration which leads us to assist the poor with pecuniary donations.

In its application, is more noble and more extensive. The word used by the apostle is, in the original, love, a word denoting that kindly state of mind which renders a person full of good-will and affectionate regard toward others.

Guided by this sentiment, the true ethical man will “suffer long and be kind.”

He will be slow to anger and easy to forgive.

He will stay his falling Brother by gentle admonition, and warn him with kindness of approaching danger, He will not open his ear to the slanderers, and will lose his lips against all reproach.

His faults and his follies will be locked in his breast, and the prayer for mercy will ascend to God for his Brother’s sins.

As ethical men we must practice charity. Not the Charity circumscribed by the narrow limits of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, binding up the wounds of the afflicted, but that broader nobler Charity that regards all men as Brothers.

Prudence-the mother of all virtues

Culture and disciplined actions should be about the beneficial action.

Prudence (Latin: prudentia, contracted from providentia meaning “seeing ahead, sagacity”) is the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason.

It is often associated with wisdom, insight, and knowledge. In this case, the virtue is the ability to judge between virtuous and vicious actions, not only in a general sense, but with regard to appropriate actions at a given time and place. Although prudence itself does not perform any actions, and is concerned solely with knowledge, all virtues had to be regulated by it. Distinguishing when acts are courageous, as opposed to reckless or cowardly, is an act of prudence.

In modern English, the word has become increasingly synonymous with cautiousness. In this sense, prudence names a reluctance to take risks, which remains a virtue with respect to unnecessary risks, but, when unreasonably extended into over-cautiousness, can become the vice of cowardice.

Aristotle gives a lengthy account of the virtue phronesis (Ancient Greek: ϕρόνησις), traditionally translated as “prudence”, although this has become increasingly problematic as the word has fallen out of common usage. More recently ϕρόνησις has been translated by such terms as “practical wisdom“, “practical judgment” or “rational choice“.

The function of a prudence is to point out which course of action is to be taken in any concrete circumstances. It has nothing to do with directly willing the good it discerns. Prudence has a directive capacity with regard to the other virtues. It lights the way and measures the arena for their exercise.

Without prudence, bravery becomes foolhardiness; mercy sinks into weakness, free self-expression and kindness into censure, humility into degradation and arrogance, selflessness into corruption, and temperance into fanaticism.

Culture and disciplined actions should be about the beneficial action. Its office is to determine for each in practice those circumstances of time, place, manner, etc. which should be observed. So it is that while it qualifies the intellect and not the will, it is nevertheless rightly styled a moral virtue. The difference between prudence and cunning lies in the intent with which the decision of the context of an action is made.

Consider how much improved our plight would be if folks in general and our public servants in particular exercised rational judgement and prudence in their affairs both personal and public.

Morals and virtue

As Franklin explained, “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” In other words, if we don’t govern ourselves, we have no choice but to be governed from above.

Virtue (Latin: virtus, Ancient Greek: ἀρετή “arete”) is moral excellence. A virtue is a trait or quality that is deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness. In other words, it is a behavior that shows high moral standards. Doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong.

The Founders Warned Us: With Loss of Virtue Comes Loss of Our Republic.

It is the secret at the heart of America’s founding—one that we have largely forgotten. Unlike other countries, America is not defined by a particular ethnic or religious group. Instead, our country was formed around an idea: liberty. But what does it take to maintain liberty?

Now, in order to find the answer to this question, we have to go back 229 years, to 1787. Having won the American Revolution, our founders went about creating a new form of government—one that would be strong, but not TOO strong; one that relied on self-government.

As their summer-long convention finished, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” He famously replied: “A republic, madam—if you can keep it!”

And what could cause us to lose the republic? Well, that’s simple: the loss of virtue.

John Adams wrote that “the only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue.” Have you heard that lately? Me neither.

What Franklin understood—and what modern crime statistics tragically bear out—is that if citizens do not voluntarily practice virtue, the authorities have no choice but to attempt to enforce it.

Beginning tomorrow I will be starting a series of blog posts outlining the Golden Triangle of Freedom. The argument boils down to this: Freedom requires virtue; virtue requires faith; and faith in turn requires freedom. Remove any one of the triangle’s sides, and the whole structure collapses. In the posts following I will begin outlining the first leg of the “Golden Triangle”, virtue.