Sunday, November 06, 2005

Playing God

Often, with many moral issues such as abortion, capital punishment, cloning, etc. people argue that the act would be wrong because committing the act is "Playing God." It is something that God and only God is allowed to do. If we were to perform the given act as well, that would be wrong. This argument suffers the most from not fulfilling its burden of proof. Once pressed for evidence, the argument will fall into a trap of circular reasoning.

Burden of Proof

If a person claims that something is true, then they have a responsibility to back it up with good arguments and/or evidence. This is called the "Burden of proof." If someone claims for example, that abortion is wrong, and is unwilling to offer up any argument in support, then their claim is unsupported. If a claim is left unsupported, then one does not have an obligation to "buy in" to that claim. One would be justified in not agreeing with that person.

Proof of Playing God

In order to prove that a given act is playing God, there are two things one must prove:

1. That God does the act.
2. That us doing the act is wrong.

Often times, people only prove statement 1 and act as if the truth of statement 1 implies the truth of statement 2. It however does not. There are many acts that God does that we are also allowed to do. God, for example, is merciful. Does that mean we shouldn't be merciful? God is truthful, does that mean we shouldn't be truthful? Would being truthful constitute playing God simply because it's something God does? No. So, one who wants to use the "Playing God" argument, they must prove both statements 1 and 2.

Here's an example: "God creates life. Therefore, if we were to create life, then we would be playing God. Hence, cloning is an example of playing God." When one asks, "Well what about sexual reproduction. Surely that creates life and is not playing God." The defender responds with, "Yes, but in that situation, nothing is forced. When you force life to exist, then you're playing God." Here's an example where the person is proving statement 1 to be true but hasn't proven statement 2 to be true. They are just simply assuming the truth of statement 2 or that statement 1 implies statement 2.

One cannot argue in the form of, "God does act X. Therefore, if we did act X that would be playing God." The person has to argue in the form of, "God does act X. It is wrong for us to do act X. Therefore, if we did act X, we would be playing God."

Begging the Question

An argument can be shown to beg the question when the person assumes the truth of the conclusion to support one of the premises in the argument.

Here's the argument in premise--conclusion form:

1. Cloning is playing God.
2. If an act is playing God, then that act is wrong.
3. Therefore, cloning is wrong.

The problem is, given what I have said above, in order to prove that one is "playing God," they must assume that the act is wrong in the first place. If you are assuming the act is wrong in order to prove the act to be wrong, then you are begging the question. The full argument, in premise-conclusion format, really looks like this:

1. God forces life to exist.
2. It is wrong for humans to force life to exist.
3. Therefore, if humans forced life to exist, they would be playing God.
4. Therefore, forcing life to exist is wrong for humans.
5. Hence, it is wrong for humans to clone.

But of course, it is obvious that begging the question has occurred. In order to prove that cloning is playing God, they must assume that it’s wrong in the first place. But of course, whether it’s wrong in the first place is what is up to debate and hence will be part of the conclusion of the argument. Hence, when pressed for its burden of proof, the "playing God" objection begs the question.

Conclusion

When people use the “playing God” objection, they often then say that people who don’t agree with them must believe that God does not exist. However, one can reasonably disagree with their argument and still be a theist (as what I have said shows). Notice how I never disputed God’s existence in order to make my argument.

The "playing God" objection can be shown to fail its burden of proof. Once pressed for evidence, it falls into the trap of circular reasoning. It must assume the act is wrong in order to prove that we are playing God. But of course, whether the act is wrong is what we are discussing in the first place.

The “playing God” objection does not work against cloning, it does not work against abortion, it does not work against any social issue that one would like to bring up. It is, like most of the arguments brought up in moral disputes, a bad argument that a critical thinker would not accept.