The Utilitarian Argument

The utilitarian argument can also be used to say that hESC research and use is unethical. This philosophy has a viewpoint that considers the right action to be the one that does the greater good ( ). You could say curing people with disease or injuries are a good thing to do. But would it be the best thing to do? Wouldn’t having a whole new life from birth be better than curing an eighty-year-old Alzheimer’s patient? Using that example, the greater good would be not to use embryos for research. Another question utilitarianism uses asks to determine morality is what will happen as a consequence of doing something. One consequence of using embryos would be that a life is ended before birth. A whole life would be ended before

it had a chance to flourish. The next great leader or scientist might have been killed as there is no telling what would have become of each person. Another consequence would be the potential use of harvesting embryos by encouraging abortions and further slippery slope possibilities.
World religions play a huge role in the argument that hESC research is ethically wrong. The Catholic religion takes the same stance on embryonic stem cell use as they do abortion. They believe that the use of embryos is ethically wrong as it ends the life of an unborn child. In a speech given by Pope John Paul II to president Bush in 2001, he said: “A free and virtuous society, which America aspires to be, must reject practices that devalue and violate human life at any stage from conception until natural death. In defending the right to life, in law and through a vibrant culture of life, America can show the world the path to a truly humane future in which man remains the master, not the product, of his technology”( ). Pope Benedict XVI showed his belief that embryo use is unethical when he stated that it is morally wrong to destroy an embryo regardless of the benefits its destruction might bring ( ).
Unlike other religions, Buddhism has no central authority to make stances or comments on ethical dilemmas. Buddhism, in itself, provides an argument against using embryos for research. In this religion, that have a strong belief in ahimsa. This is a belief that it is ethically wrong to do anything that is harmful to destructive to others. Buddhism believes in rebirth and that human life begins at conception. The embryo bears the karmic identity of a recently deceased individual ( ). Thus, it should be entitled to the same moral respect as an adult person. By killing the embryo, you would not only be killing a life, but also the karmic of someone who just died. This would be harmful, so it would be considered unethical.
Hinduism is another world religion that does not have a central authority. They too believe in reincarnation. Hindus think that once a body dies, its soul finds a new temporal home in an embryo and a new life begins at conception ( ). This belief as deep roots going back to ancient India. This is when an ancient system of assumes that fetuses are alive, aware, and have a consciousness. These doctors even prescribed a mental and spiritual regimen to pregnant women. The Hindu epic book called The Mahabharata even supports these ideas by showing how the unborn learned military strategies up to point where a father died ( ). As with Buddhism, Hindu’s would find killing an embryo as unethical.
Philosophy never gives a definitive right answer to what is truly right or wrong and provides no absolute moral rules. Even though Kant’s beliefs can be used to argue against stem cell research, it can also be used as an argument for it. In Kant, he states that people have an intrinsic worth and dignity. So, wouldn’t those people who are suffering from disease and injuries also have a value? It can be considered cruel to allow people to suffer when there is a potential for great advances in medical science that could someday cure patients. Allowing patients to suffer and die a slow death takes away from the dignity of that person. Most embryos are typically discarded if not used. Since government makes laws that allow for this to happen, then using embryos to help preserve life and protect the dignity of an individual would be ethical.
Utilitarianism can also be used as an argument for using hESC research to advance medicine.

Part of this philosophy is that morality is about making people happy vice pleasing God ( ). People suffering like Christopher Reeve would be more than happy if a cure was found that allowed them to live a normal life. Many people in society would have been happy too as possibly another sequel of Superman could have graced the silver screens staring Reeve. Burn victims would be happy to not live life in pain and disfigurement. An embryo has not developed to a point where it can be happy and, in most cases, are going to be discarded anyway. Since consequences are the most important in this utilitarianism, there wouldn’t be any as the embryo would have been destroyed anyways. So, ethically, using them would be in the best interest at making people

happy.
Consequences are important to in utilitarianism to help determine morality. The medical costs are a burden to those who have diseases and traumatic injuries. Many times, a majority of those costs are picked up by social programs such as Medicare or Medicaid. Totally disabled people in the United States would qualify for disability and their lives funded through the government. A moral argument could be made that it’s better to find a way to cure these people than to have society absorb the costs.
Ethical Egoism could play a role in supporting hESC research. Egoism dictates everyone’s best interest should be promoted. The best way to achieve that is through each individual’s pursuit of their own interests exclusively ( ). Certainly in the eyes of Christopher Reeve, it would be most beneficial if embryos that are being discarded could be used to eventually provide him a cure or treatment that allowed him to walk again. To any persons own point of view in a situation such as Reeve’s, it would be morally right to help them end the suffering.
Some religions support hESC research to help those in need. All major Jewish denominations support the use of embryonic stem cells for furthering medicine. According to Jewish Law, life does not begin at conception but does at gestation. This is a process that occurs in the embryo forty days after conception. Humanity is lacking before gestation and therefore it is considered not to be a lifeform ( ). Because the destruction the embryo occurs quickly after it is created, Jews feel that it is ethical and morally sound to use embryos. Embryonic stem cell research is widely supported by the Jewish community making Israel the forefront of stem cell research.
Presbyterians think that using hESC’s are ethically moral.

The General Assembly that governs the religion has stated that it is in favor of stem cell research to restore health for the people suffering illnesses ( ). However, this religion does view embryos as having a chance to achieve personhood. So, what they support is using the embryos that would no longer be liable of implantation for fertility. By using those embryos, it gives a balance to helping those in need while not ending the potential for life and thus base for their moral argument.
Buddhism has and argument for and against hESC research. As stated earlier, Buddhism uses ahimsa as their argument against stem cells. There is an equally strong argument using prajña and karua, which means the pursuit of knowledge or wisdom and compassion respectively, as a basis to claim stem cell research is ethically moral. Some Buddhists feel that the tenant of pursuing knowledge is morally right if it is used to end suffering. Prajna gives rise to karuna and vice versa. They are used as a means towards enlightment (

).
As you can see, there are many reasons to take an ethical stance for or against hESC research. Philosophical ethics and religions can have different or conflicting stances on the subject. Personally, I take a Kant and utilitarian view to support hESC research. I feel that we have a moral obligation to help those suffering and the consequences would be minimal if the embryos were being discarded anyway. The financial burden would be eliminated socially if this research lead to cures. Helping people would be the greater good and thus why I support hESC research.