Elements of African Bioethics in a Western Frame

5. AFRICAN PERSPECTIVES ON BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

~ 49 ~ CHAPTER FIVE AFRICAN PERSPECTIVES ON BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS1 [A version of this chapter is published in A Companion to African Philosophy, edited by Kwasi Wiredu, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004, pp. 387-395] In the domain of morality correct practice without theory is preferable to correct theory without practice. INTRODUCTION The last quarter of the out-going century/millennium has witnessed two very important developments - one at the theoretical level and the other at the practical. At the theoretical level, there has been a significant shift of emphasis in the Western world (the dominant/dominating culture of the last two centuries of the millennium) in its intellectual patterns and theorising fashions, from concern with overly speculative abstract theoretical issues to more practical matters. This shift of focus and emphasis has, perhaps, been dictated by an increasing realisation of the very grave dangers posed to the entire planet Earth and its occupants by what could be described as the most successful aspect of Western culture - its science and technology. Practical/Applied Philosophy, Ecophilosophy , Environmentalism, Developmentalism, Medical Ethics, Feminist Ethics, Bioethics etc., are some of the fruits, among many others, of this intellectual shift in focus and emphasis. At the practical level, there has been the phenomenon of globalisation which can be considered as both a descriptive process and as a prescription. As a descriptive process, globalisation has been made possible and inevitable by advances in Western science and technology, especially in loco-motion and communication technologies. This has led to increased contact between the various peoples and cultures that populate the Earth which, today, is aptly described as a ‘global village’. As a prescription, globalisation arises from increasing awareness of both the diversity (ecological, biological, cultural, linguistic) and the interdependence of the various parts, peoples and cultures of the world and the consequent simple deduction that the problems, challenges and dangers facing the world ~ 50 ~ as a whole, even if emanating largely from only a small part of it, can effectively best be tackled only from a global perspective. Human technology in general, and biotechnology (agricultural and human) in particular, have narrowed the gap between the natural and the artificial, between nature and humanity, between ‘God’s work’ and ‘work of human hands’, to the extent that some have proclaimed God and/or nature dead. Human tinkering with nature, which can be said to have begun with the discovery of agriculture about 10 millennia ago, and which seems both inescapable and unobjectionable, has evolved, thanks to modern technology, into wholesale interventions, epitomised in the engineering and release of novel artificial life-forms into the environment. Such developments have gradually turned perennial moral concern with the physical environment and with medical practice into moral disquiet and even moral alarm. (Beck, 1992; Mckibben,1989, Kassiola, 1990, McLaughlin, 1993). ECO-BIO-ETHICS As Frederick Ferré (1994) pointedly remarked at the Nairobi World Conference of Philosophy on ‘Philosophy, Humanity and the Environment’ (July 21-25, 1991): By the time organisms are sufficiently artificial to be patentable, it is clear that the relative weights of nature and culture have reversed themselves. Culture is in the driver’s seat and nature is hanging on for dear life (literally!) as we hurtle down unexplored roads, with poor visibility, and with uninspected and untried breaks. (pp. 237-238). The cogency and pungency of this metaphoric remark, made before mammalian cloning became a scientific fact in 1997, is today even more heightened in its appropriateness. Nevertheless, biotechnology also holds a certain justified fascination for human beings because of its potential positive possibilities in such domains as preventive and therapeutic medicine and in agriculture. In the face of these developments, human ethical sensibilities and responsibilities are urgently called-for. As human beings, we carry the whole weight of moral responsibility and obligations for the world on our shoulders. The claim that humankind is the apex of biological existence, as we know it, has sometimes been dismissed as an arrogant speciecist claim and contested by some human militants ~ 51 ~ for the rights of animals and/or plants. Less disputable, however, is the fact that, while human beings have putative moral responsibilities towards inanimate nature, plants and animals, besides, of course, fellow humans, inanimate nature, plants and animals cannot be considered, without absurdity, as having any reciprocal moral obligations towards humans. Human interventions in nature could plausibly be justified by appeal to this responsibility, although this does not imply...