Karma and Ethics
The Need for a Practical Definition of Medical and Scientific Ethics
Without a practical definition of scientific ethics and pragmatic application of philosophy science and technology are becoming increasingly dangerous.
In the modern world with all of its advancing technology the word ethics gets thrown around. There are passionate pleas about the ethics of stem cell research or genetic engineering but does anyone really understand the concept of ethics? The proper definition of ethics may be the most important thing to the pursuit of advanced technology, medical or otherwise. Technology is progressing at an exponential rate and without a base with which to ground an ethical discussion such concerns could become dated very quickly.
There is one concept that can provide that base, karma. In Buddhism and Taoism karma concerns cause and effect. Every action has a consequence and regardless of one's intentions there will always be consequences whether good or bad. In the grand scheme of things consequence is what really matters. Something that seems the right thing to do now may cause cataclysmic consequences for future generations. As complicated as a stream of events is a simplified method is more effective to understand long term repercussions of an event. For this very reason morality cannot serve this purpose for it is ultimately a human concept and influenced by the dominant culture.
By analyzing cause and effect one can see the possible consequences of an action. Would a technology or a scientific advance produce real benefits or just perceived benefits? Would it give independence to those who use it or cause them to be dependent on it? Would it encourage people to become lazy and not look for other solutions to a problem? Asking these questions are more relevant to ethics then any moral discussion is likely to be for they promote a more direct discussion into the pros and cons of technology.
In the case of medicine the most relevant question is will a piece of medical technology actually cure disease and alleviate suffering? If the answer to this is no then is there really any moral discussion worth getting into? It is not the tools that a doctor uses but how they are used that is important. The right tool in the wrong hand will inevitably produce the wrong result. If an unsubstantiated claim about a medical tool would not cure people, if it encourages people to not take responsibility for their health and if it gives false hope then how can it be ethical regardless of the means used to develop it?
When the consequences are removed from any discussion on ethics the entire concept of ethics becomes meaningless. In Buddhism having the right attitude and reason for doing something are part of the path to enlightenment. In Zen Buddhism keeping the mind focused on what one is doing and not getting distracted by superfluous ideas are paramount into accomplishing a goal. In Taoism artificial constructs of morality as exists in many societies is meaningless next to natural morality. Since the whole of nature functions by interconnectivity where one part of the whole can influence all parts cause and effect are the only relevant concept. Natural morality functions this way and so should ethics. If people can change their way of thinking the whole discussion of ethics will take the practical stance that it should and proper discussion can occur. Even Confucius warned of the dangers of overt intellectualism and impractical philosophical discussions.
