Ethics: Because I said so

There was an article in Tuesday's NY Times about the ethical dilemmas presented by new technology. An environmental scientist is quoted in the article saying, "There is no one to say 'Thou shalt not'". That phrasing struck me as odd. "Thou shalt not" is biblical terminology, and the implication of the statement is sort of Nitzschean. I mean, either this woman believes that there never was anyone who said "Thou shalt not" (i.e. there is no God), in which case it doesn't really bear mentioning in this way (because if there never was then it doesn't relate to new technology or anything new for that matter), or, more likely, there was but isn't any more (i.e. God is dead).

Whether you believe that God really dictated to Moses (among others) or not, the fact is that a great many people did believe that, so someone, whether it was God, or just Moses himself, was able to tell people "Thou shalt not", (and have many of them listen and accept it as a commandment they must follow). If someone were to try the same thing today (i.e. to say, whether truthfully or not, that God spoke to them, they would likely be institutionalized (or, depending on where they were from, maybe killed). I wonder, if someone found or claimed to have found, some ancient text adding all sorts of commandments, would people listen?

It isn't so far fetched. The Book of Mormon is a whole lot newer than Moses and his commandments and there are a lot of people out there not drinking coffee, tea or alcohol, because Joseph Smith told them that God didn't want them to and a good many of them believe that it is purely about obedience.

I always thought that God would know what things we might want to eat and drink that could be harmful to us and that those dietary restrictions (which many religions have) were more about God protecting us from harm to our health. However many people who believe in a good and loving God also, apparently, believe that this Father in Heaven, is the type of parent that comes up with arbitrary rules and insists that we follow them because He said so.

I actually like this parental analogy because as an adult I can see that some of the things my parents told me not to do, which at the time seemed arbitrary, were really for my own good (like God's diet laws). They were trying to protect me. For example, when I was 14 my mother told me to stay away from older guys. She explained it really well too. She told me that once I was out of school, age difference wouldn't matter (at least not as much), but until then, people change so much so quickly that older guys would be vastly different that guys my own age and than me, that they would want different things than I wanted. I ignored her, of course, and a year later nearly got myself raped (or more accurately got myself nearly raped).

Even after that happened I still wasn't exactly a paragon of obedience. I'm obedient if I understand the reasons why I should be and sometimes, I have to make the mistake in order to understand the reasoning. When it comes to things that affect my own health and well being (like the things my mother told me not to do, or religious dictates about not drinking coffee or eating pork) I can make my own mistakes but the things they are talking about in this article have potentially harmful effects on humanity as a whole. It seems to me like the absence of someone to say, "Thou shalt not", might actually be a good thing. Especially if the only reason offered would be, "because I said so".

In the absence of such an authority, panels of scientists and philosophers convene to discuss the ethical implications of creating new technologies whose effects on humanity are yet unknown and could potentially be disastrous. These are people who can tell us not just that we shouldn't do these things, but why we shouldn't do them.