昔日真理報 -

作者：曹傑明 / 中譯：羅懿信

上期我開始提出「複製狗」的倫理問題，意圖演示我的神學導師 Dr. Stanley Grenz 的基督教倫理反省方法。雖然這了解 (attuning)、分析 (analyzing)、與實踐 (applying)的方法可以處理任何倫理議題，但我選擇了一個較新穎的個案，盼能透過此個案表明此方法不單有效用，甚至遠古聖經著寫時代難以想像的現代議題，都可以處理。

上期提文中，藉美國一對夫婦在他們的愛犬離世後透過商業動物複製的個案，我嘗試表述倫理分析的首要進路 - 了解 (attuning)。藉此，我勾畫出此例從世俗的角度最相關的事實，包括背景、動機、方法、結果、法律幾個範疇，以及從基督教角度的一些相關的信仰觀點。這些都是在「了解」此過程中必須留意的典型內容，亦會直接影響下一步 - 分析 (analyzing)。

然而，有另一範疇是上次沒有明確提及的，便是「目標」(end)。一個行動的目標的是它的預期結果 (intended result) 或目的。目標一方面顯然是與「動機 」(motivation) 有關，另一方面也與「結果」(result) 有關。「動機」可以理解為一渴求，引致某人以某些行動達致某一特定結果（目標）。但是，往往實際的結果卻與「目標」（預期結果）有所出入，全因行動可能失敗，或產生出意外的后果。以本文引述之例，一頭寵物複製的實際結果恰巧乎合寵物家庭的預期結果，故此可以不作區別。換上另一家庭作出同樣決定，換來可能是徹然不同的結果。結集了以上論述的六或七個範疇的事實後，我們便準備好了進入下一步驟。

分析剖視

於此步驟，我們嘗試認清何為真正核心的倫理問題，希望能點出憑什麼說某事情是合乎道德與否，及我們為何作出這判別。換言之，就是在某個案上我們定它為在倫理上有問題與否的理據何在。我採納的途徑是透過上列各範疇的考慮作全面的分析，綜合了「後果論」(consequentialist) 與「非果論」(non-consequentialist) 的觀點，前者注重的乃是行動的目標或結果，後者卻注重於行動本身及達致目標的方法，也不時會把背景、動機、法律等元素放在考慮之列。於我混合剖析取向，我會把上述各項都作考慮。

驟眼看來，所舉之例仿若不涉倫理道德問題，個案背景本身是完全純真的。寵物主人的行動主要動機乃出於其對狗狗及兒女的愛，也沒有違反法律，亦好像沒有違背任何聖經經文，最終結果更是皆大歡喜。無論是從「非果論」或「後果論」、世俗或基督信仰的角度來看，這案例都看似是良性的。

繁殖性複製技術 (reproductive cloning, 有別於 therapeutic cloning 治療性複製技術) 的反對者相信會以「不作神」(do not play God) 的論點對此案例作出反對。這常用的論述所持的立論為 - 既然上帝乃生命的創造者，人類不應人工地創造生命或在其原結構上加工。雖然此說正確地警惕人類的傲慢及忽略上帝對生命的旨意及其神聖，但它卻往往是出於一種對嶄新應用科學知識的膝跳反應，也輕視了上帝賦予人明白大自然，以作為上主形象的載體的身份管理它的責任。

然而，當對此案例從前一步驟所發掘出的實況再作更深入的分析，我們會發現不少嚴重的倫理問題：

1. 第一，就科學角度來看，以為複製一頭寵物乃其生命的延續這看法是錯誤的。盡其量，複製狗只可相比於原狗的「雙生兒」，卻絕對不是原來的狗狗。如此看來，若從商業角度把複製的寵物說成是原寵物的真身，複製技術乃造福失去寵物的主人去延續與已故寵物的關係和生活，此舉是造假及剝削，所以亦為不道徳。但若是寵物主人全然知情，卻仍願意以人工商業方法複製他們的竉物，因為他們喜歡他們竉物的特徵，這又如何？如此情況下，他們的動機便須進一步的檢視。

2. 由此便帶出以下的問題，複製對被複製的動物究竟是好是壞？假設複製的狗狗對主人的愛，無論是對其本身、或原本的真身，都是無動於衷的，那麼複製對它本身或它生命的質素又有何意義？作為一頭複製狗對它來說會否更易產生先天及後天的傷殘病患，甚至影響它生命的長短？早於21世紀科學研究已證實眾多類似的問題，縱使隨著科技日新月異的發展，上述的情況理應逐步減少，但又誰能決定何為可接受的程度、及在何理據上作實？複製技術是否應限制於最低程度的使用直至科技發展致對被複製動物的最少傷害？現今大規模對此科技的應用似乎正無視對動物的傷害。

3. 最後，動物權益其實不只着眼於被複製動物，牽涉的亦包括在過程中被牽連的其他動物。如上期所言，複製過程中亦有從其身上取出卵子細胞的狗隻、及把胚胎放於其中的代母犬。這胚胎移植通常要經過多次重覆的過程以確保順利。此舉無疑會為其他參與在過程中的犬隻帶來風險及苦楚，而這些卻是用來滿足人類複製者的目的與渴望。

應用實踐

在此最後的步驟， 我們會把基督教信仰及價值引進分析，藉此糎定對議題的實質確切回應。對此我嘗試帶出以下初步結論：

1. 首先，我們必須防止人們誤以為他們能藉複製技術把已故動物重生的想法。若我們看重真理，務必使所有相關人等，包括家中的孩童，清楚明白複製寵物實非原本寵物。複製公司絕不能標榜或暗示他們能使已故寵物復生，這是虛假廣告。這裡引申到另一點，動物複製的討論經常牽涉到複製人類，就是按上帝形象所造的。如此，公佈複製技術真相的重要性從而呈指數加添。假使「透過複製技術能帶來復生」這種思維廣範地滲透於社會中，人們便開始期待及期望相同事情能發展至人類。但這是另一個更嚴肅的議題，日後有機會才可處理。

2. 再者，若我們相信人類被神創造並作為祂形象的載體，其中包括反映祂對一切受造之物的恩愛，我們便應關注動物的權益及福祉。不應諷刺地，在對某一動物表達由衷的愛時，卻為另一動物帶來不必要的苦及傷害。於此考量下，與動物權益組織合作將更有效地達至更人道及更反照上帝恩愛的途徑。基於在上一步驟引發的倫理爭議源於公眾範疇，我們可選擇尋求屬世意見及視野、並在溝通中見証基督信仰價值，這將有助推動更完善的動物複製工業的管制。

3. 第三，縱使死亡帶給人們切膚的傷痛及真實的失落，此痛失不下於寵愛的寵物的離世，然而當中，信徒卻可為基督信仰中復活的盼望及萬物的修復作見證，此乃基督徒面對死亡時的昐望。雖然基督教的末世論少有談及動動的死後生命，但對上帝會抹去所有眼淚及叫萬物更新的確信，叫我們深知上帝會為我們失去的提供最好的應對。故此，我們便能以敏感及恩慈分享一個盼望的信息。

結論

透過這簡單的個案研究，我盼望能示範一個濃縮的表述，解釋如何作基督教倫理反思，亦鼓動大家參與在類似討論，以見證我們三一真神的真實。你對我所禪述的贊成與否並非最要緊，重要是留意我如何作了解 (attuning)、分析 (analyzing)、與實踐 (applying)。每一細節都會面對猜疑、求証、挑戰。為求達致有意義及具建設性的討論，我們必須知道我們基於什麼產生分岐，而坦誠及理性的溝通。認清哪一部份的倫理反思屬世俗範疇、哪一部份屬宗教範圍讓我們能更能把倫理討論帶進社會及教會圈子。

In the last issue of Truth Monthly (June 2020), I started to use a recent case of dog cloning to illustrate the method of Christian ethical engagement proposed by my theological mentor, Stanley Grenz. While this method of attuning, analyzing, and applying can be used on any ethical issue, I have chosen a relatively novel case to illustrate its utility. This is significant because I not only aim to show that the method is useful, but also that it is useful for situations that were unimaginable in the ancient world in which the biblical texts were written.

In my last article, I have sketched out the first step of my ethical engagement with this case: an American couple had their beloved dog commercially cloned after its death. In that first step of attuning to the relevant facts, I have delineated the most pertinent facts from a secular perspective about the case's context, motivation, means, result, and legality, as well as some relevant views from a Christian perspective. These are the typical areas that we should pay close attention to in the step of attuning, and will directly inform the next step of analyzing.

However, there is one more area not explicitly mentioned last time, that is the "end" 目标. The end of an action is its intended result or goal. This is clearly related to motivation on the one hand, and actual result on the other, both of which were mentioned last time. Motivation can be defined as the desire that leads people to act in a certain way in order to bring a about a certain result (end). Nevertheless, the actual result of an action is not always the same as its end (intended result), both because an action can fail or bring about other unintended consequences. In the current case, the end of cloning a family pet happened to be closely matched by the actual result, and therefore did not need to be described separately. Another family that makes the same choice can very well have very different result though.

Having collected the facts on the six or seven areas mentioned above, we are ready to move to the next step.

Analyzing

In this step, we try to identify clearly what the core ethical issue is. We want to put a finger on what makes something morally right or wrong, and why we make that judgment. In other words, what are the reasons why we might find a particular case to be ethically problematic, or not? My approach is to consider each of the areas mentioned above important for a thorough ethical analysis. This is in contrast to the consequentialist approach, for example, which tends to focus on the end or the result of an action, or the non-consequentialist approach, which emphasizes the action itself (the means used to achieve the end), and sometimes considers its context, motivation, and legality as well. In my hybrid approach, I take all these areas into consideration.

At first glance, the case as reported seems to be ethically unproblematic. The context per se is completely innocent. The couple was motivated by love for their pet and children. No law was broken. No scripture seems to be violated. Everyone seems to be happy at the end. On both consequentialist and non-consequentialist grounds, from both secular or Christian perspectives, the case seems benign. And it may well be.

Opponents of reproductive cloning (as opposed to therapeutic cloning) may object to this case using the "do not play God" argument. This common argument claims that since God is the creator of life, humans must not artificially create life or to temper with its basic building blocks. While this argument rightly cautions humans against hubris and possible disregard for God's will for life or the sanctity of life, it is often used as a knee-jerk reaction towards novel applications of scientific knowledge and abrogates our responsibility to use our God-given capacity to understand nature and to steward it as God's image bearer.

However, a deeper examination of the facts as revealed by the previous step uncovers some serious ethical problems:

1. First, scientifically, it is a mistaken belief that a clone of a pet is the extension of its life, that the owner gets the same pet back. At best, a clone is analogous to a biological twin, and not the same as the original pet. On this point, for a business to present pet cloning as a means to recover a lost pet, to continue an existing relationship with a dead pet, is both deceptive and exploitative, and therefore immoral. But what if the pet owners are fully informed, and still want to artificially and commercially create a genetic copy of their pets because they want their traits? In that case, their motivation needs further examination.

2. This leads to the following question. Is cloning good for the new pet that is cloned? Assuming that the pet is indifferent to whether its owners love it for its own sake or for the sake of the original pet that it replaces, as long as it is treated well, how does cloning affect its own quality of life? Does being a clone make it more prone to defects, diseases, or have a shorter lifespan? Scientific studies done early in the 21st century identified numerous such problems and more. Granted that such negative impacts on cloned animals will likely reduce as scientific knowledge increases and the technology develops, but who decides what is an acceptable level of negative impacts, and on what basis? Should reproductive cloning at least be kept at a minimum level until the technology has developed enough to minimize harm to the clone animal? Large scale application of this technology now seems to disregard animal suffering.

3. Finally, concern for animal welfare applies not only to the cloned pet, but also to other animals involved in the process. As mentioned last time, the cloning process involves the extraction of egg cells from a donor dog and the insertion of the cloned embryos in the uterus of a surrogate dog (may or may not be different from the donor dog). This embryonic implantation is often done in large number or repeatedly to ensure success. This inevitably brings risk and suffering to the other dogs involved, which are being used as tools to fulfil the objective of the human cloners.

Applying

In this final step, we bring our Christian beliefs and values to bear on our analysis, and work out practical responses to the issue. I suggest here a few tentative conclusions:

1. First, we must disabuse people of the notion that they can bring dead pets back to life via cloning. If we take truth seriously, all parties involved, including the children of the family, need to be informed clearly that the clone is not the same pet. Companies in the cloning business must not be allowed to suggest or imply that they are bringing the original pet back. That would be false advertisement. Incidentally, any consideration of animal cloning often leads to the discussion of human cloning, which deals with what Christians believe to be bearers of the divine image. When that happens, the stakes for communicating the truth about cloning becomes exponentially higher. If the notion of recovery by cloning becomes engrained in society, people may begin to wish and expect the same extension of life to humans. But that's a different and much weightier topic for another time.

2. Second, if we understand part of being made in God's image means we are to reflect God's benevolence towards creation, we should be concerned about animal welfare. In a case that is ironically motivated by love for a specific animal, we should endeavour to minimize unnecessary suffering and harm to other animals. In this regard, collaboration with animal rights organizations may be an effective mean to work towards a more humane world that reflects God's benevolence. Since the ethical objections raised in the previous step are based on public facts, we have the option to communicate from a purely secular perspective or to bear witness to our Christian commitment. This may include lobbying for greater regulation of the pet cloning industry.

3. Third, for the real hurt and deep loss that death brings to people, even in the case of losing a beloved pet to death, we bear witness to the hope of the resurrection and the restoration of all things. This is the content of the Christian hope in the face of death. Although Christian eschatology does not often discuss whether animals participate in life after death, the conviction that God will wipe every tear away and make all things new assures us that God has the best answer to our losses. Thus, we can share a message of hope with sensitivity and grace.

Conclusion

With this brief case study, I wish to demonstrate in a much-abbreviated way what goes into Christian ethical reflection, and encourage you to engage in such discussions, as we bear witness to the Triune God. Whether you agree with what I have written is not the most important thing. The soundness of my argument depends on whether I have attuned to the relevant facts accurately, analyzed the matter insightfully, and applied the appropriate Christian perspectives on the matter. And each of these points can be subject to scrutiny, verification, and challenge. For meaningful and constructive discussion to happen, we must be clear about where our disagreements lie and talk about them clearly and rationally. Recognizing which parts of our ethical reflection is secular and which parts are religious allows us to engage in ethical discussion in the public sphere as well as in the church.