Considering the various definitions there are of the phrase “playing God”, perhaps we should define this phrase before we criticize it. After all, it is a pejorative in the Western tradition, while it is something to strive for in Eastern tradition (SHAHZAD, Q. 2007). In order not to get to tango up in semantics, we will follow the Western tradition and consider this a pejorative. In this vein, let us assume that the meaning here is doing something that is ethically beyond the purview of a human being. Of course, we now have to define exactly what we mean by ethically beyond the purview of a human being. I believe that the line should be drawn by considering possible benefits vs. possible damage. However, there are very few human beings who would be able to make an objective decision in this area. So then there remains the problem of who is to be the judge.
When the clergy or other religious groups fling this accusation at someone it is usually because they are somehow changing the meaning of what the religious advocate believes to be true. Of course, believing something makes one neither right nor wrong. It simply makes them sincere. But we cannot use sincerity as a ruler here. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Reference the disaster mentioned in the article by Coady (200?) concerning the importation of certain cane toads into Australia. This was done was very good intentions, another great deal of forethought or study. So perhaps that has to be part of the definition. Depending upon the possible severity of the consequences or value of the benefits does enough diligence study allow one to “play God”? Also, we must consider the possibility that the average human ethic would consider certain actions to be unethical, regardless of the consequences.
One example of this is the buying and selling of internal organs. It is my gut reaction that this is always wrong. Yes, the families of the persons selling the internal organs benefit by acquiring a great deal of money, and this is generally life-changing for all concerned. However, the very fact that one can buy or sell internal organs presents the very real problem of abuse. There is a very fine line here that we have chosen to call on the side of legality. In North America the buying and selling of body organs of living people are illegal. This does not preclude the getting of said organs to save the life of a friend or relative. It is felt by lawmakers and those who must defend the law by making buying and selling illegally. It will lead to the prevention of certain abuse, and also allow us to impose severe consequences for breaking this law. This does not stop the trade in the internal organs, but it certainly slows it down.
In looking at life-threatening or life-saving treatments, we must also consider the question of euthanasia. Who should control the individual’s right to live or die? I believe that even in the case of applying the death penalty for a crime, only the individual concerned should have that right. This would mean that we would have to change the laws and disallow an imposed death penalty while allowing the condemned to choose between life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and execution. However, it also means that someone who is terminally ill should be allowed to choose when they will die. Does anyone have the right to impose excruciating pain for what may become months or even years upon someone who will never be able to leave their bed? (Spinney 2003)
I have a friend who has been widowed for more than twenty years. She is eternally grateful that she lives in Canada. Her Canadian husband was given every bit of care that would extend his life with reasonable quality. Once it was determined that there was no way to make his health any better all the resources were diverted to making his dying comfortable. When he caught pneumonia, his wife was given the choice of treating it or not. She was informed that if he died from pneumonia. It would be much kinder than if he died from cancer. She was also informed that if they treated it he would live for me several more weeks, possibly even a few months. However, this would also mean that he would die in excruciating pain because there would become a point where pain killers would no longer be effective. She elected to let him go. She regretted this decision instantly when he died, but after being given some time to overcome the pain, she realized it was the right thing to do. Did she play God? According to some clergy, yes. However, I would say that she rather played loving humans.
One of the areas in which this accusation is often applied is in the area of reproduction. There are semi-violent and even very violent groups that advocate murder to prevent abortions. Some fundamentalists believe that no woman should ever have an amniocentesis, because this might show defects that would cause her to get an abortion. Of course, they never considered that she might be getting the amniocentesis to apply possibly life-saving intervention for a fetus that has problems. So who is it that is playing God here? We cannot answer that question, but we can say that imposing one’s religious beliefs upon other people is wrong. One may not be playing God when doing this, but one is certainly applying judgment upon other people. Since nobody knows precisely who God is or what he thinks, it seems ridiculous that anyone could maintain that he has inside knowledge.
Where we draw the line as to what we consider God-like, humanlike, or even humane is a question that we may struggle with until the race ceases to exist. It is my belief, that even should God show up tomorrow, there will be those who deny his existence, and if he fails to show up for the next 10,000 years, there will also be those who insist they know him intimately. Playing God seems to be merely a matter of degree. I do not think twice about fixing a young child’s clubfoot or trying to repair a case of spina bifida. We just do it because it will make that person’s life better. It will eliminate pain and minimize disability, with no provable downside. Certainly, that person may not develop the same as if they were faced with that disability, but since we cannot do both, we have to opt for the obvious improvement. It is the humane thing to do. Perhaps that is the word we should be using: humane. If that is the question we consider before any action. I suspect we will make a few mistakes when it applies to human beings.
As for applying the judgment of actions on the environment, we need to consider the possible outcomes very carefully. Here we’re on a very slippery slope. I believe the evidence that says that inaction is the wrong thing to do. If we do not reduce the population, we pair the environment, especially natural balances, and reduce the damage we are doing to the planet, this planet will either kill us or die. Natural selection seems to have made us the dominant species on this planet, whether that was by the design of some deity or not does matter. What does matter is we have the power to save or destroy our home. In the absence of solid evidence to the contrary, I believe this is the place where we need to play God because if we do not we lose. I could use the Bible to prove this or disapprove of it, but I do not feel the need. It is simply a practical reaction to what I believe science has proven. We must change the way we live on this planet and use its resources, or we and the planet will change yours reversibly. Just as we have not learned to bring people back to life, we do not have any idea how to bring the planet to life.
The same line, which we should apply to the environment should also probably be the line that we apply to science. Science should be restricted to using ethical means, regardless of the possible outcomes. However, it is not for the scientists to decide how scientific discoveries and developments will be applied. That is the function of society. (Shand 2007) What we must do is create a society that will sincerely consider benefits vs. possible consequences and draw the legal framework to support decisions made by our elected representatives and appointed judges who are mandated to try to make ethical and humane decisions on these questions. Scientists should do what they do best, inquire. Drees (2002) says that God is for the gaps. Of course, we must maintain a legal system that allows us to change our minds in the future in the light of new evidence. We will never be right, but we can keep trying.
Yes, I believe, sincerely, that anyone who seeks to impose their own religious beliefs on someone else is at least playing God’s advocate and presuming that he, or she, has some kind of inside track. Since there is no scientific proof in this area, our social system must prevent such impositions. As for what other actions might be deemed as playing God and therefore be reprehensible, I think the only solution here is a constant debate among genuinely sincere individuals who simply seek to do the right thing.
References
Coady, C.A.J. 200? Complete this citation from your book.
Drees, W. (2002). “Playing God? Yes!” Religion in the Light of Technology. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 37(3), 643-654.
SHA IHZAD, Q. (2007). PLAYING GOD AND THE ETHICS OF DIVINE NAMES: AN ISLAMIC PARADIGM FOR BIOMEDICAL ETHICS. Bioethics, 21(8), 413-418.
Shand, H., Thomas, J., & Wetter, K. (2007). Playing GOD. Ecologist, 37(3), 42-47.
Spinney, L. (2003). Playing God?. New Scientist, 180(2415), 48-51.