Playing God (ethics)
Playing God refers to assuming powers of decision, intervention, or control metaphorically reserved to
Description
Playing God is a broad concept, which is encompassed by both theological and scientific topics. When the term is used, it can be used to refer to people who try to exercise great authority and power. It is usually pejorative and suggests arrogance, misappropriation of power, or tampering with matters in which humans should not meddle.
Etymology
Playing God generally refers to someone using their power to make decisions regarding the fate of another's life or many lives. Theologian Paul Ramsey is noted for saying, "Men ought not to play God before they learn to be men, and after they have learned to be men they will not play God." The religious framework of approach to this phrase refers to said religion's deity having a set plan for mankind, therefore man's hubris may lead to the misuse of technology related to sacred life or nature.[5] Other famous literary texts that allude to a man and God complex include Men Like Gods by H. G. Wells and You Shall Be Gods by Erich Fromm. The notion of god-like knowledge or power in humans goes back at least to the story of forbidden fruit in Genesis 3:4–5 whose traditional English translation includes the words "ye shall be as gods".
History
Throughout history, many cultures have had stories and mythologies that depict figures that have attempted to deify themselves, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The famous myth of Prometheus in ancient Greece tells the tale of someone who stole from the Gods and gave to the people, and whilst he was punished for eternity, he was also hailed as a champion of the people. Apart from mythology, many contemporary thinkers, scientists, and books have argued for and against the case of playing God, and why it is necessary or unnecessary for the human race to take on the mantle.
In more modern history, there have been many scientific projects, which have been considered to be attempted acts of playing God. Biomedical projects such as the attempted creation of artificial sperm and the creation of artificial life itself have brought the sci-fi stories of the 1900s out of fantasy and closer to reality. Other projects scientists have attempted include cloning (
Practices
Bioethics
The most common form of "playing God" in the modern era is attributed to
Nature
Artificial intelligence
Artificial intelligence has been a frequent topic of moral questioning in the 21st century. Many deem the human creation of another dimension where the being is sentient and possibly near identical to human intelligence to be an act of playing God.[11] Contrary to bioethics and geo-engineering, artificial intelligence does not physically intervene in nature and its processes. Since the invention of the Internet and complex computing systems and algorithms, artificial intelligence has exponentially improved and is now used in everyday technology. The term "artificial intelligence" contrasts that of natural intelligence, displayed by biological organisms. Major organisations around the world, including the United Nations, have commented on the relationship between artificial intelligence and the impact it may have on human lives in a negative way. UN Secretary-General António Guterres noted that AI drone strikes have the capability to possibly go rogue and take lives without human involvement. Other practices of AI can include many other matters, such as Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer that is capable of beating grandmasters at chess.
Debate
There is a strong debate regarding morality and the consequences of science and playing God. Gene editing is a big topic that has been the centre of the argument for decades.[12] Many religious figures believe the notion that life is the plan of God and not to be taken away or synthetically given by man, while some scientists argue that if humans are able to do so then God must have meant it to be.
Genetic modification
The bioethical debate regarding genetic modification in food and humans has many arguments for and against. In the UK, 4% of the half a million children born have life-affecting genetic defects.[13] This includes genetic diseases that can lead to early death, long-term mental issues, or a lifetime of debilitating physical health problems. Many scientists and supporters of genetic modification argue that DNA is not sacred, and is in fact just chemical sequences in an organism. DNA down to the microscope is just atoms made of elements just like any other living or non-living matter. The University of Pennsylvania in 2016 used mice with a genetic liver disease and were able to genetically edit the mice at birth so that they did not have this deadly disease.[13] It is also argued that since humans are part of nature, then all actions of humanity are technically natural.[14] A beaver building a dam is considered natural, a bird building a nest is also considered natural, so therefore the activities of humans are also natural and a result of autonomy and free will.[14] This argument deduces that certain animals evolved with special traits to assist with their survival and humans developed the special trait of technological advancement.
A common argument against genetic editing especially that of children is the designer baby argument.
Geo-engineering
With climate change, and what some perceive to be a difficulty in international cooperation regarding the matter, scientists in some countries are discussing the possibilities of geo-engineering and how it would help their environment. Many
Artificial intelligence
Scientists in the past few years have been attempting to create advanced artificial intelligence that seeks to rival our behaviours and learning capabilities. Those in favour argue that it is there to aid us and it is not necessary for it to eclipse humanity's intelligence and ability.
See also
References
- PMID 19816799.
- PMID 8146712.
- Nautilus. Retrieved 2019-05-02.
- PMID 30852991.
- .
- ^ Ball, Philip (2010-05-24). ""Playing God" is a meaningless, dangerous cliché". Prospect Magazine. Retrieved 2020-04-12.
- ^ Erler, Alexandre (2010-05-26). "Is "playing God" just a meaningless phrase?". Practical Ethics. Retrieved 2020-04-12.
- ^ ISSN 1476-4687.
- ISSN 1467-9744.
- ^ S2CID 149327407.
- ^ S2CID 210149622.
- ^ "Login - CAS – Central Authentication Service". sso.roanoke.edu. Retrieved 2024-02-22.
- ^ ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-181635-2.
- ^ a b c Basulto, Dominic (2012-06-29). "How we're playing God now". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2020-05-29.