5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Genesis 3:5-6 (ESV)

In February 2001, a group of Nobel Laureates wrote to President Bush, urging him to advance the cause of embryonic stem cell research. They claimed to recognize the “legitimate ethical issues raised by this research.” But they also insisted that “it would be tragic to waste this opportunity to pursue the work that could potentially alleviate human suffering.” Clearly, they believed that the potential benefits outweighed the ethical cost of the research.

Despite God’s prohibition (2:17), the serpent held out great hopes for Adam and Eve if they would eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (3:5). Eating would be an eye-opening experience, equipping them to become like God. Since He created, God knew His creation, and defined it as good (1:4, 10, 12, etc.). He also recognized and rectified what was not good (2:18). The serpent was offering the chance for the man and woman to be like God, and define what was good and evil within creation. Looking at the fruit, Eve desired it, because she thought that by it she would gain wisdom (3:6). And so she ate. The desirable consequences of eating led the couple to ignore God’s prohibition.

However, consumption led only to disappointment. Their knowledge did not enable them to supplant their Creator as the arbiters of good and evil within creation. When their eyes were opened, Adam and Eve did not gain God-like wisdom. They merely saw and knew that they were naked (3:7). But their newfound “wisdom” did not simply disappoint. It led to fear at God’s presence (3:8-10), and to His judgment, which ultimately ended in exclusion from His company and death (3:22-24; 5:5).

Since the nineteenth century, utilitarian ethics have dominated moral decision making in the English-speaking world. Stemming from the writings of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), utilitarianism focuses on the outcome of an action and aims for the “greatest good of the greatest number.” If the ends are right, they justify the means. It is easy to see why this is attractive, but the Fall demonstrates that there is a more important question to ask: Does God permit this action? For disobedience to God’s Word brings His curse. This far outweighs any apparent advantages of a lawbreaking act. In the area of stem cell research, this means that potential medical benefits never outweigh the cost of disobeying the commandment not to murder.

Utilitarian arguments are frequently used in debates over stem cell research. They carry a powerful emotional appeal to many. Who would not want to take advantage of this technology’s apparent medical promise? However, as with Adam and Eve, perhaps the potential benefits of pursuing this act have been exaggerated. Alternatively, it could be that eventually such research will lead to major medical breakthroughs. But, even if research on human embryonic stem cells could offer the benefits claimed, the cost of breaking God’s law would still outweigh the gains, for sin inevitably leads to judgment.

Thus, one of the greatest needs in current ethics debates on this issue is for God’s spokesmen to point out the folly of a purely utilitarian ethic. They should proclaim the sanctity of human life as the foundational truth that must govern all future developments in stem cell technology.
First Baptist Church of Perryville located in Perryville, one and half miles east of Route 222.