Beauty amongst the tyranny of the urgent

So, in this interesting article - a famous world-class violinist plays as an unknown street musician in a crowded DC metro station one weekday morning to test the reaction of passer-byers to beauty amongst time constraints, hectic schedules, ipods, blackberries, and a mind already gearing up for the demands of the day.

I have to admit my first reaction was to be a little critical - what was wrong with all these people - did they not realize this man could PLAY the violin...not just run the bow along the instrument and make some pleasant sounds, but really play? I know you were busy, you may have been stressed, running late, or had other things on your mind, but...can you really miss Bach? Then I stopped and thought - would I have noticed, taken time to stop? To my credit, I actually am nearly positive I would have noticed...but stopping, now that's another question. And why not? Well, how would I explain that to my boss? Well sir, I was late because there was this musician and he was playing incredibly beautiful music and I had to stop...no wait, doesn't sound like a good enough reason, well, I'm late for this meeting on euthanasia because Beauty called, Truth answered, and it was Good....no, now I just sound too metaphysical... well, I don't have your speech ready because I stopped to have my soul inspired and lifted up on the wings of music...no no, still not "practical" enough... To my shame, I think I would have stayed a mere moment and then hurried on because none of my "excuses" were good enough.

But why does beauty need an "excuse"? Is it a luxury? I want to say that it is not...and yet few in this world have time for it. With hunger, evil, selfishness, ignorance, and disease in the world to combat, who has time for beauty. But what if beauty were part of the answer to eliminating the evils...what if Goodness and Truth are, in fact, only two parts of the essence of the best things and God Himself and Beauty is the third? What if the ancient Greeks and the Ancient Christians were right?

In response to Sandel on Embryonic research

John Sandel's article can be found here:

My first two thoughts are on his criticisms. He says Bush (amongst others) is being inconsistent since he does not pursue a ban on all embryo-research. I think that criticism simply doesn't account for pragmatism. The President may very well have requested this if he thought the political reality was such that he could get it, perhaps his personal beliefs lead him to this exact conclusion. For example, embryo destructive research is seen by many as being one step down from abortion and abortion is even more morally abhorrent and obviously destructive of a human being - and yet we have no federal ban on abortion. Some things are simply not possible at this point even if logically they would be consistent with your morals.

The same may be said of IVF clinics - his second criticism - and the extra embryos they create. Many objectors to embryonic research also have problems with IVF clinics rather glibly making many more embryos than parents would want to implant, apparently giving very little thought to the moral realities of creating extra lives to just sit and wait in freezers. On the other hand, only a relatively small percentage of these embryos are actually "thrown out" - a Rand study in fact, showed that at best there would only be 11,000 of the 400,000 embryos touted as on the verge of being thrown out and currently counted as "extra" which would in probable fact be allowed for research. In addition, many countries that make use of IVF do limit the number of embryos that may be created and many have regulations requiring all created usable embryos to be implanted. The fact that American IVF clinics are almost entirely unregulated shows a large loophole - of course if we go about creating embryos like so many "clumps of cells" then their moral status will fall and we will consider however many are "in excess of the need" to be fair game for research.

Surely Mr. Sandel would recognize though, that it is a consistent and logical view to hold that in principle making use of assisted reproductive technology is morally acceptable, and yet making use of it to create "excess" life and then using that "extra" life in whatever laboratory experiment suits your fancy is not. Hence, shutting down all IVF clinics would not be the moral solution desired, rather enacting legislation such that embryos were not created in excess, were not left to endless waiting in freezers, and were not viewed as just "so many cells" to be destroyed, manipulated, etc at will.

This is not a new moral philosophy. We have long had laws that specify what is acceptable to do with a human even after their life is no longer in their bodies - cadavers are not open to any kind of research whatsoever nor can just anyone do what they like with a dead body. We still view that body as having importance, even moral significance. If even a dead body is granted some amount of protection than surely a live embryo should as well.
In addition, we have historically held that an embryo or fetus while not fully developed, and obviously not born, still is more morally significant than an animal or an inanimate object. By Mr. Sandel's objections, this distinction would seem ridiculous. I think even most proponents of embryo research would agree that the embryo is something more significant than a skin or hair cell or even cluster of tissue cells.

I appreciate Sandel's attempt to view embryo-destructive research from the opponents' perspective and yet setting up straw men for rebuttal is somewhat less than helpful. Embryo-destructive research will most likely continue to be a major point of contention so long as scientific ethics are limited to such questions as fraud and abuse of subordinates and neglects the greater philosophical questions of moral responsibility. Scientists might do well to add this maxim to their academic pursuits: Ask not only what you can do in science, ask also what you should do.