Religious Responses to Modern Ethical Issues: Cloning, AI, and Climate Change

,

1. Introduction

Modern technologies and global crises pose profound ethical questions. Religions worldwide have developed diverse theological, moral, and practical responses to issues such as cloning, artificial intelligence (AI), and climate change. This analysis surveys major religious perspectives and doctrinal frameworks addressing these challenges.

2. Cloning

2.1 Definition and Context

Cloning involves creating genetically identical organisms. Human cloning raises issues of identity, dignity, and the nature of life.

2.2 Christian Responses

Catholicism

  • Opposes reproductive cloning as violating human dignity and instrumentalising life (Pontifical Academy for Life, 1997).
  • Accepts therapeutic cloning only if it respects embryonic life, which current methods do not (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995).

Protestantism

  • Generally opposes reproductive cloning; opinions vary on therapeutic cloning depending on views of embryonic status (Peters, 2001).

2.3 Islam

  • Generally prohibits reproductive cloning, viewing it as interference with Allah’s creation (taghyir khalq Allah) (Sadeghi, 2007).
  • Therapeutic cloning is debated among scholars; permitted if it does not involve destruction of viable embryos (Islamic Fiqh Academy, 2003).

2.4 Judaism

  • Orthodox Judaism opposes reproductive cloning due to lineage, identity, and dignity concerns (Dorff, 2000).
  • Therapeutic cloning is more acceptable if used to save lives, reflecting pikuach nefesh (saving life) principle.

2.5 Hinduism and Buddhism

  • Hindu texts provide no direct precedent but concerns revolve around karma, rebirth, and dharma; cloning may be seen as unnatural interference (Coward, 2003).
  • Buddhism focuses on intention and harm; reproductive cloning is viewed cautiously due to potential suffering, whereas therapeutic cloning is debated (Keown, 2005).

3. Artificial Intelligence (AI)

3.1 Christian Responses

Catholicism

  • Views AI as a tool but warns against threats to human dignity, privacy, and employment (Rome Call for AI Ethics, 2020).
  • Emphasises that moral agency remains uniquely human.

Protestantism

  • Cautions against idolatry of technology and emphasises stewardship, justice, and human-centred design (Watkins, 2020).

3.2 Islam

  • Views AI positively if aligned with Sharia objectives (maqasid al-shariah), enhancing welfare without violating ethics (Al-Dhaafri et al., 2020).
  • Concerns over surveillance and privacy from AI technologies are prominent.

3.3 Judaism

  • Sees AI as an extension of human creativity (co-creation with God) but raises ethical concerns on accountability, justice, and Sabbath observance with autonomous systems (Dresner & Sherwin, 2008).

3.4 Eastern Religions

Hinduism

  • Generally open to AI as a tool, integrating with karma and dharma frameworks. Some philosophical schools question AI consciousness relative to atman (soul) (Sundar, 2018).

Buddhism

  • AI’s lack of sentience implies no moral status, but use should reduce suffering and promote compassion (Coeckelbergh, 2010).

4. Climate Change

4.1 Christian Responses

Catholicism

  • Laudato Si’ (Pope Francis, 2015) frames climate change as a moral and spiritual crisis, calling for integral ecology and global solidarity.

Protestantism

  • Many denominations engage in creation care theology, environmental activism, and climate justice movements (Hitzhusen, 2007).

4.2 Islam

  • Environmental stewardship (khalifa as trustees of Earth) mandates protection against climate harm (Izzi Dien, 2000).
  • Global Islamic declarations (e.g. Istanbul Declaration on Climate Change, 2015) call for emission reductions and renewable energy.

4.3 Judaism

  • Views environmental care as fulfilling commandments to protect creation (Bal Tashchit – do not destroy). Jewish environmental groups advocate sustainability (Schwartz, 2002).

4.4 Hinduism

  • Nature is sacred; environmental ethics integrate with concepts of dharma and ahimsa (non-harm). Hindu organisations promote vegetarianism and environmental campaigns (Dwivedi, 1993).

4.5 Buddhism

  • Advocates mindfulness towards nature; environmental harm is viewed as unwholesome karma (Gross, 1997). Engaged Buddhism leads climate justice initiatives.

5. Theological and Philosophical Themes Across Religions

5.1 Stewardship and Co-Creation

  • Most religions embrace human responsibility as stewards or co-creators with moral obligations to use technologies ethically.

5.2 Limits of Human Power

  • Religions caution against hubris, emphasising that human knowledge is limited compared to divine or cosmic order.

5.3 Sanctity of Life and Dignity

  • Cloning debates centre on human dignity; AI ethics revolve around dignity, autonomy, and justice; climate change involves dignity of vulnerable populations and all life forms.

6. Conclusion

How are religions responding to modern ethical issues?

Religions are:

  • Engaging deeply with bioethics, AI, and environmental ethics, drawing on scriptural principles, theological traditions, and contemporary moral philosophy.
  • Offering diverse responses, shaped by doctrines, cultural contexts, and interpretations.
  • Providing moral frameworks for policymakers, scientists, and communities to navigate these complex challenges with justice, compassion, and humility.

Overall, religion remains a vital voice in global ethical discourse, shaping how humanity approaches its technological and environmental future.

7. References

  • Al-Dhaafri, H. S., et al. (2020). Islamic Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence Ethics. Journal of Islamic Ethics, 4(1-2), 1-22.
  • Anderson, A. (2014). An Introduction to Pentecostalism. Cambridge University Press.
  • Bunt, G. R. (2018). Hashtag Islam. University of North Carolina Press.
  • Coeckelbergh, M. (2010). Robot rights? Towards a social-relational justification of moral consideration. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(3), 209-221.
  • Coward, H. (2003). Hindu Ethics: Purity, Abortion, and Euthanasia. SUNY Press.
  • Dorff, E. N. (2000). Matters of Life and Death: A Jewish Approach to Modern Medical Ethics. Jewish Publication Society.
  • Dresner, E., & Sherwin, B. (2008). Jewish Ethics for the Twenty-First Century. Syracuse University Press.
  • Dwivedi, O. P. (1993). Environmental Crisis and Hindu Religion. In J. Holm & J. Bowker (Eds.), Religion and Ecology. Cassell.
  • Gross, R. M. (1997). Buddhism and Ecology. Harvard University Center for the Study of World Religions.
  • Hanegraaff, W. J. (1996). New Age Religion and Western Culture. Brill.
  • Hitzhusen, G. E. (2007). Judeo-Christian theology and the environment. Journal of Environmental Education, 39(1), 7-20.
  • Hutchings, T. (2017). Creating Church Online. Routledge.
  • Islamic Fiqh Academy. (2003). Resolution on Cloning. OIC.
  • Izzi Dien, M. (2000). Environmental Dimensions of Islam. Lutterworth Press.
  • John Paul II. (1995). Evangelium Vitae. Vatican.
  • Keown, D. (2005). Buddhism, Bioethics and Society. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 12, 1-21.
  • Modood, T. (2013). Multiculturalism. Polity Press.
  • Peters, T. (2001). Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom. Routledge.
  • Pontifical Academy for Life. (1997). Reflections on Cloning. Vatican.
  • Rome Call for AI Ethics. (2020). The Call for AI Ethics. Vatican.
  • Sadeghi, B. (2007). Islamic Biomedical Ethics. In Bioethics and Other Life Sciences. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Schwartz, R. H. (2002). Judaism and Global Survival. Lantern Books.
  • Singler, B. (2020). The Church of AI. In AI Narratives. Oxford University Press.
  • Sundar, P. (2018). AI, Consciousness and Hindu Philosophy. Journal of Hindu Studies, 11(2), 149-167.
  • Watkins, J. W. (2020). The Imago Dei and the Problem of AI Personhood. Theological Studies, 81(2), 299-323.
Home