Week 6: Biotech & Art

 This week's material was my favorite so far, in that the readings and questions given were very novel. 

The most important conflict I grew to understand this week was the debate over biological art. For example, in "Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications", questions are raised over copyrights, legality, and compensation regarding genetic engineering in art. I inferred that the ambiguity in these debates laid in whether art is viewed as a means to an end. For example, the paper states that experimentation on animals is common, whether it be psychological experiments or drug testing. However, when it comes to modifying biological organisms for display or commentary, protests were raised regarding "ethical concerns about the trivial use of genetic engineering" (Defining Life, 9). 

 

 

 

The operative word here is "trivial": it implies that artistic violations of bodily autonomy or animal freedom are more reprehensible than their corresponding scientific experiments. (What's interesting is the inversion of this aversion when it comes to humans: human trials have regularly been regarded as last-resort or even war crimes, while human or bodily art is novel. My instinct is that consent is the connective factor here.)

What's interesting to me about this implication is how the application of various moral frameworks might change the narrative. The first relevant one to consider is deontological ethics. The guiding factor in this theory is that morally unsound actions are always unsound, no matter the justification or result. If we applied this idea to animal experimentation, then causing animals harm would be wrong, even if it led to cures for human ailments. Therefore, using living creatures in science or in art would be equally immoral, and one of the major questions of the "Defining Life" reading would be answered, however unsatisfactorily. 

 

 

 

In contrast, if we discarded moral absolutism and instead applied a utilitarian framework, we could state that scientific experimentation is valid (because of the people it may save later) while artistic manipulation is invalid (because it is unlikely the "good" as a result of artistic creation will outweigh whatever "bad" is inflicted on the art matter). However, this is a very simplistic view of utilitarianism in regards to art, because what is considered "good" or "bad" determines our conclusion. For example, if we prioritized mental stimulation and cultural progress over physical harm, then we could justify biological art because of its effect on viewer's minds. In contrast, if we held physical health over all other considerations, then any form of dangerous art, voluntary euthanasia, etc, would likely set back cultural progress. 

 

Since the general populace is unlikely to agree on one ethical theory, this could be where conflict over biological art stems from. Of course, it is unlikely that most people have morals quite so black-and-white in nature, but it is an interesting thought experiment.

In addition to base moral beliefs, another source of conflict regarding biological art described in "Defining Life" was commercial benefit. Could you patent or copyright DNA? clones? an ear grafted on to an arm? cybernetic enhancements? If you did, who should receive the benefits? When you create art with animals who can't consent or understand the concept of intellectual property, who is the artist- the modified, or the modifier? The paper elucidates many of these points, but one consideration that it failed to mention in detail was the effect of capitalism on these dilemmas. When everything is monetized and incentivized, and there exists precedent of corporations being endowed with "qualities akin to biological life" in order to unbalance financial influence in politics, I believe it is hard to answer these questions in an objective manner (Defining Life, 1). 

 

 

References

Deontology. (2021, January 25). Retrieved May 08, 2021, from https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology

Embracinganimal.com. (n.d.). Retrieved May 08, 2021, from http://www.embracinganimal.com/

Glaser, C. (2016, October 13). Ballot measure to try to END Citizens United will likely pass, but will it do anything? Retrieved May 08, 2021, from https://www.kcrw.com/news/articles/ballot-measure-to-try-to-end-citizens-united-will-likely-pass-but-will-it-do-anything

Levy, E. K. (n.d.). Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classification.

Meanings of participation: Outlaw Biology? (n.d.).

Utilitarianism. (2021, January 25). Retrieved May 08, 2021, from https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/utilitarianism