Abstract
Jürgen Habermas has argued that religious views form a legitimate background for contributions to an open public debate, and that religion plays a particular role in formulating moral intuitions. Translating religious arguments into “generally accessible language” (Habermas, Eur J Philos 14(1):1–25, 2006) to enable them to play a role in political decisions is a common task for religious and non-religious citizens. The article discusses Habermas’ view, questioning the particular role of religion, but accepting the significance of including such counter-voices to the predominant views. Furthermore it is pointed out that not only religious but also numerous secular views stand in need of translation to be able to bear on policy matters. Accepting Habermas’ general framework, I raise the question whether experts (such as clinicians working in relevant specialised areas of care) participating in political debates on biomedical issues have a duty to state their religious worldview, and to what extent the American government decision to restrict embryo stem cell research is an illegitimate transgression of the State-Church divide.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is important to notice that this is a normative theory concerning the legitimacy of political decisions. Even if political decisions generally are not based on open deliberation and consensus but on bargaining and strategic thinking, these normative ideals can be the basis for evaluating the legitimacy of real-life political decisions.
This does not mean that believers must translate their views in order to participate in the public debate. It is even in the interest of the liberal state that these unfiltered opinions are voiced (Habermas 2006, p. 10). We return to this point later.
I would like to thank Kristian S. Ekeli for drawing my attention to the significance of group polarisation.
In the last chapter of his The Future of Human Nature, Habermas (2003, p. 101 ff.) discusses and exemplifies the notion of translation. One can certainly question whether translations manage to retain the essential insights of the religious worldview. In many, or perhaps all, cases it is reasonable to assume that fundamental aspects are lost in translations, something Habermas probably would admit. I have not dealt with this problem in this article, assuming that the Habermasian model is an acceptable solution to the problems connected with democracy and religious pluralism as long as the proponents of an argument themselves decide to what extent the translation is a politically acceptable rewriting of their convictions.
Other texts and traditions support a more egalitarian understanding of the relation between the sexes.
The implication is not that strategic interests necessarily are at odds with the truth, but they may be. If we disclose our interests, others are given the opportunity to see for themselves to what extent the interests influence the arguments.
Apparently the main reason for restricting to sex-linked diseases was the vagueness of the concept “serious disease”. Fear of a slippery slope is probably the reason for preferring an arbitrary distinction to a vague one.
Both quotations are translated by the author.
It should be emphasised that Professor Solbakk is in favour of including religious perspectives into the bioethical debate, holding that that they may present particularly valuable perspectives on the issues under debate.
Johnson (1991, p. 188 ff.) criticises Habermas’ picture of strategic action for being simplified.
This argument was suggested to me by Rosamond Rhodes.
A similar argument is found in Habermas (2003) concerning the instrumentalisation of the future person involved in genetic manipulation.
This argument is based on a suggestion by Jan-Helge Solbakk.
References
Aristotle, 1991. On rhetoric. A theory of civic discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brinton, A. 1985. A rhetorical view of the ad hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63 (1): 50–63.
Bush, G.W. 2001. President discusses stem cell research. In The White House Press Release. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2008.
Curtis, J.M. 2005. Bush letting religion undermine science. San Fransisco Chronicle, 25 May. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/25/EDGUGCU56T1.DTL. Accessed 24 Mar 2008.
Elster, J. 1998. Introduction. In Deliberative democracy, ed. J. Elster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fitelson, B., C. Stephens, and E. Sober. 1999. How not to detect design–critical notice: William Dembski, the design inference. Philosophy of Science 66: 472–488.
Gutmann, A. 1993. The challenge of multiculturalism in political ethics. Philosophy and Public Affairs 22 (3): 171–206.
Görman, U. 2002. Religious responses to biotechnology. In Science and religion dialogue, ed. R. Constantinescu and G. Calina. Craiova: University of Craiova.
Habermas, J. 2003. The future of human nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. 2006. Religion in the public sphere. European Journal of Philosophy 14 (1): 1–25.
Johnson, J. 1991. Habermas on strategic and communicative action. Political Theory 19 (2): 181–201.
Kant, I. 1974. Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Kant, I. 1996. The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. 1987. The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7 (1): 1–25.
Rawls, J. 1999. The law of peoples with “the idea of public reason revisited”. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.
Ruse, M. 2003. Is evolution a secular religion. Science 299: 1523–1524.
Singer, P. 1972. Famine, affluence and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1): 229–243.
Singer, P. 1975. Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: New York Review/Random House.
Skogstrøm, L. 2004. Professorkrangel. Aftenposten, March 11. http://www.aftenposten.no/helse/article751168.ece. Accessed 24 Mar 2008.
Starck, C. 2006. Embryonic stem cell research according to European and German Law. German Law Journal 7 (7): 625–656. http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues_archive.php?show=7&volume=7. Accessed 24 Mar 2008.
Sunstein, C. 2002. The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2): 175–195.
Wertz, D.C. 2002. Embryo and stem cell research in the United States: History and politics. Gene Therapy 9: 674–678.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Jan-Helge Solbakk, Ola Didrik Saugstad and two anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestion.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Myskja, B.K. Rationality and religion in the public debate on embryo stem cell research and prenatal diagnostics. Med Health Care and Philos 12, 213–224 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-008-9172-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-008-9172-9