Astrobiology. Группа авторов

the lowest common denominator. “Rather,” comments Kenyan theologian Gavin D’Costa, “I would suggest that it is important to allow different communities to advance their own thick descriptions, and then to work with what arises at that point” [2.23]. The assumption at work here is that thin values unite while thick values divide. Is this hopeless?

      In response to D’Costa, I suggest that an Astroethics of Responsibility should enlist each existing tradition-rich moral community into a common planetary endeavor. This shared endeavor would then deal with a matter that concerns all earthlings equally, namely, our planet’s relation to what is beyond our planet. Given the existing competition between moral groups on Earth, and given the urgency of a unitary approach, perhaps a thin yet shared set of moral values would be the best we could practically ask for. A distinctively modern ethic that avoids top-down tyranny and encourages bottom-up participation would provide the requisite foundation for a planetary approach to space ethics [2.25].

       2.2.2.3 A Secular Grounding for Astroethics?

We have just reviewed a distinctively Christian approach to ethics based upon a vision of the common good; and we have reviewed some religious alternatives. What about an avowedly non-religious or secular public agenda for astroethics? One admirable attempt is offered by Kelly C. Smith of Clemson University.

      How does Smith answer our grounding questions? Who are we? According to Smith, we are human beings who have evolved into social creatures and have constructed culture. What do we value? We value reason. Smith describes the human race as “ratiocentric.” This leads to a “package deal” in which the “sociality-reason-culture triad (SRCT) is the proper basis for intrinsic moral value” [2.78]. What should we do? We should search for the extraterrestrial equivalent of ourselves—for SRCT aliens—and then expect that both the aliens and ourselves would share the same basic ethical structure. “The SRCT linkage may be so strong that it constitutes a universal property of other intelligent species in the universe” [2.78] [2.68].

      Rather than ol’ fashioned manifest destiny, Smith advocates “manifest complexity,” a doctrine according to which rational intelligence should come to rule in the universe. Our purpose as rational beings is to “maximize universal complexity” [2.78], something SRCT aliens would understand and share with us.

      This is a secular ethic grounded in a selected human trait, rational capacity or intelligence. Reason is lifted up as morally foundational, not an uncommon move in our post-Enlightenment era. In principle, any ethicist could lift up any trait to serve as the ground for intrinsic value. Christian ethicists are not likely to embrace Smith’s ratiocentrism. Much higher on the Christian value scale than reason are affections such as compassion, love, service, and justice. For the Christian, mentally disabled or socially inept or culturally marginalized persons each have dignity; each has intrinsic value and should be treated as a moral end and not merely a means. Smart humans are not more valuable than dumb ones on the Christian scale of values. This commitment to universal human dignity is grounded in God’s conferral of dignity on us in the incarnation. In sum, Smith’s astroethic may seem persuasive only to that segment of society which is already ratiocentric.

      Despite this demur, Smith has provided a laudably coherent argument, in my judgment. The fact that Smith’s program seems arbitrary is by no means his fault. It is due to the fact that we live in a pluralistic world with moral relativity. It is difficult to ground any ethic that could be universal in our situation. Therefore, what a theological ethicist should do is promulgate a religiously grounded point of departure and then look for overlap with others representing differing perspectives toward the end of seeking sufficient common grounds to launch a single global community of moral deliberation. Smith’s naturalistic justification for valuing life provides an enticing overlap if not partnership.

As just suggested, a secular astroethics of responsibility is likely to seek some level of grounding in one or another form of naturalism. The ethicist will ask nature to provide foundational insights for human valuing. This method risks committing the naturalistic fallacy—that is, drawing a moral “ought” out of an already existing “is.” Yet, without a transcendent grounding in the divine, nature is about all that is left to undergird an ethical vision.

      Kelly Smith and Steven Dick, along with Hans Jonas, bring to the astroethical construction site a welcome supply of nature’s building materials. When we pour an aggregate of naturalistic gravel and theological stones into the concrete, the resulting foundation will be firm. “While theology can provide potentially universal principles such as compassion and dignity that will be useful in the context of astroethics, the problematic naturalistic fallacy should not stand in the way of secular ethics playing an important and perhaps predominant role” [2.26]. In short, theological and secular ethicists should link arms in constructing a superstructure of quandaries that lead to fitting moral responses.

      2.2.3 Third Foundational Question: What Should We Do?

       2.2.3.1 From Quandary to Responsibility

      What should we do? We have already asked: Who are we? And we asked: What do we value? Now, to answer this third question—What should we do?—we draw on a pair of concepts: quandary and responsibility. No doubt communities and traditions find themselves frequently confronted with a quandary accompanied by a sense of responsibility. Such communities must work through the quandary by drawing practical applications out of their fundamental ethical orientation. Perhaps we can build on this common phenomenon as a foundation for multicultural ethics. We will call it the “Quandary-Responsibility method” within an Astroethics of Responsibility.

      First, to demonstrate, today we are confronted by a quandary: How should we think ethically about the prospect of sharing the cosmos with space neighbors? Roman Catholic ethicist Charles Curran provides a framework. “Quandary ethics deal with concrete, objective human situations. In addition, it is here that human reason, science, and human experience predominate” [2.22]. This quandary regarding space exploration and ETI is not religion-specific. It does not begin with dogma and then seek application; rather, it begins with an astroethical question and then surfs the tradition for a helpful answer.

Second, we approach the quandary with a sense of moral responsibility. As the etymology of the Latin, respondere, meaning to answer, suggests, responsibility ethics answers questions raised by our changing situation [2.37]. Responding or answering belongs to the “primordial experience of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition: a call from God that human beings accept or reject” [2.50]. In the present discussion, what calls to us for a response or answer is the quandary posed by new space knowledge.

      The Quandary-Responsibility method provides a keeled river raft to navigate the rapids, a stable boat to ride the rushing whitewater of science, technology, and social change. When the quandary is prompted by a situation that lies beyond Earth and more than likely will affect our entire planet, then perhaps we need to think of a single planetary moral agent. It is our global community that should be morally responsive and responsible. To work with the notion of responsibility for earthlings and to work with the idea of a shared commons in space, we will need to commit ourselves to a vision of universality. The universe requires universality.

       2.2.3.2 From Space Sanctuary to Galactic Commons

      Earlier we introduced Arnould’s proposal to treat outer space as a sanctuary; and we introduced the Roman Catholic notion of the common good. In extending these ideas [2.66] we ask: Is it fitting to think of circumterrestrial space as a commons, as belonging to us all and not to any person or nation in particular? [2.62]. Boston University theologian John Hart would answer in the affirmative. “The sacred cosmic commons is a communion of commonses cosmically interrelated and integrated. It is stardust become spirit; it is atoms become life and thought, all in the presence of a transcendent-immanent Being-Becoming, creating Spirit” [2.33].

      Let’s return for a moment to what the United Nations has said. “The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried