The Wicked Dangers of Personhood Theory — A Conversation with Professor Carter Snead
May 21, 2025
auto_awesome
Carter Snead, Charles E. Rice Professor of Law at Notre Dame and bioethics expert, delves into the wicked dangers of personhood theory. He critiques the reduction of personhood to cognitive abilities, highlighting its risks for vulnerable populations. The discussion spans historical ties between bioethics and political discourse, revealing how media shapes public perceptions around abortion. Snead also examines the ethical complexities of IVF and biotechnology, urging a reevaluation of humanity amidst evolving societal norms.
The historical context of bioethics illustrates its emergence from ethical violations, shaping essential frameworks for medical and scientific decision-making.
A critical examination of personhood challenges the reductionist view that limits humanity to cognitive abilities, emphasizing the importance of embodied identity.
The complexities of expressive individualism in bioethics highlight the tension between personal autonomy and communal responsibilities, particularly for vulnerable populations.
Deep dives
The Historical Genesis of Bioethics
Bioethics emerged as a recognized field in the latter half of the 20th century, propelled by critical public events and academic discussions. The late 1960s marked the inception of bioethics, coinciding with significant scandals highlighting severe ethical violations in research, notably including the mistreatment of vulnerable populations in studies. Such instances, like the exploitation of intellectually disabled children at Willowbrook and the deceitful Tuskegee experiments, triggered societal outrage that ultimately led to the establishment of governance frameworks around medical and scientific ethics. This historical backdrop underscores how bioethics evolved from an absence to a necessary discourse as society grappled with essential ethical questions in medicine and research.
Defining Human Identity in Bioethics
A central critique in bioethics revolves around the reductionist view of human identity that limits the definition of personhood to cognitive functions or will. This limited understanding neglects crucial aspects of the human experience, particularly the embodied nature of human identity. As bioethical discussions evolve, the simplistic view of humans as purely cognitive beings risks marginalizing those who cannot exhibit such intellectual or will-driven capacities, such as infants or individuals with disabilities. This ongoing debate emphasizes the need for a fuller acknowledgment of what it means to be human, integrating both the mind and body into the conversation.
The Impact of Individualism on Bioethical Discourse
Expressive individualism, a concept suggesting that identity is centered around personal beliefs and desires, complicates bioethical discussions by promoting autonomy at the expense of relationships and communal obligations. In a world where values are often shaped by personal choice, concerns about the implications for vulnerable populations—such as unborn children or those reliant on the care of others—become increasingly difficult to articulate. The shift toward considering individuals solely as autonomous agents diminishes the significance of unchosen connections, like familial relationships, which are pivotal in balancing individual autonomous rights with moral responsibilities. This ideological stance complicates not only bioethical decision-making but also shapes public policy that impacts the weakest members of society.
Abortion and Personhood: A Contested Terrain
The ongoing debate around abortion highlights profound ethical dilemmas rooted in differing perceptions of personhood. Proponents of abortion rights often engage in complex philosophical arguments, asserting that personhood is contingent on cognitive abilities or the capacity to desire rights, leading to the troubling implications for other life stages. Such discussions reveal how pro-abortion rhetoric can destructively blur the line between personhood and status, influencing public perception and legislation in life-and-death situations. The dialogue surrounding these questions reflects deeper philosophical divides about what constitutes a human being and underscores the need for clarity in discussing the implications of reproductive rights.
The Complexities of IVF and Moral Responsibilities
In vitro fertilization (IVF) raises critical ethical questions about the intersection of desire for children and moral considerations surrounding human life. As reproductive technologies advance, the commodification of human life, revealed through practices like embryo selection and the treatment of embryos as mere products, poses significant ethical dilemmas. The emotional drive for parenthood often clouds the moral responsibilities associated with assisted reproductive technologies, resulting in a lack of reflection on the implications of treating embryos as disposable or negotiable. This demands an ongoing dialogue that thoughtfully evaluates how the technological facilitation of reproduction intersects with familial responsibility and the recognition of the intrinsic value of all human life.
This is Thinking in Public, a program dedicated to intelligent conversation about frontline theological and cultural issues with the people who are shaping them.
In this edition of the popular podcast series “Thinking in Public,” Albert Mohler speaks with Charles E. Rice Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, Carter Snead. They discuss his latest book, “What It Means to Be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics.” If you enjoyed this episode of Thinking in Public, you can find many more of these conversations here. You can purchase “What It Means to Be Human” here.
Sign up to receive every new Thinking in Public release in your inbox.
