What people can do, and what they should do

What should I do? Simple though this question posed by Immanuel Kant (1724 –1804) may seem, it is difficult to answer properly. In 1785 the philosopher from Königsberg formulated the question of how an individual human being should deal with his freedom and his opportunities. This problem had preoccupied human beings since time immemorial. For thousands of years, the Golden Rule had served as a guideline: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the traditional formulation in English.

It's an idea that is easy to understand, and it points to a basic concept of practical ethics — that is, of the behavior that defines our daily lives. This is the concept of the mirror image, which seems to be a universal component of human experience. Approximately 2,300 years before Kant, the Chinese philosopher Confucius spoke of "shu" or empathy — our capacity to imagine ourselves in the situations of other people. In Buddhism, Hinduism, and Greek and Roman antiquity — in all cultures, in fact, consideration of other people's feelings is a guideline for behavior. As one of Muhammad's five rules puts it, "Wish for other people what you wish for yourself."

This makes sense, and it seems to be a general constant of human experience. In 1995 the Italian neurophysiologist Giacomo Rizzolatti even found a biological correlate in the human brain. He discovered that certain "mirror neurons" are activated when an individual imagines himself being in the situation of another person. A person who stands in front of a brass band and bites into a lemon brings the music to an abrupt halt. Kant could not yet know that the foundation of the Golden Rule is more or less anchored in our biology. But he already sensed — living as he did at the beginning of the Industrial Age and on the eve of the French Revolution — that the future development of the natural sciences, the humanities, and commerce would open up entirely new possibilities for mankind.

Emergent technology is almost always double-edged. It is neither good nor bad in itself; rather, its effects depend on how, and for what purpose, people use it. The discovery of nuclear fission has also divided mankind regarding the question of its use in peace and war. The question "What can I do?" has received different answers. In 1961 the Swiss author Friedrich Dürrenmatt made this question the focus of his comedy "The Physicists," which deals with the themes of insight and responsibility.

Not just in physics but also in other fields, research leads to a series of new discoveries whose consequences affect not only the individual scientist but also society as a whole. For example, the scientific theory behind our concept of hygienic behavior and its optimization, which was formulated by Ignaz Semmelweis starting in 1847, does not harbor any possibilities for misuse.

However, research in the fields of fertility and genetics presents issues related to the application of these discoveries. In addition, there are other considerations that lie outside the realm of science — for example, the question of whether the results of medical and pharmaceutical research are affordable. These considerations should not be regarded in isolation. Take the question of whether a company should develop a medication for an illness that is so rare that the cost of the research will probably not be covered by future sales of the medication. The issue of such "orphan drugs" is not a purely economic matter.

In particular, research in the areas of artificial insemination, the human genome, and the broad array of possibilities offered by stem cells have led in many countries to the formation of ethics committees that advise governments concerning the legal framework of such research. When Germany established its National Ethics Council in 2001, it was motivated by the additional wish to expand Immanuel Kant's principle of ethical duty through the method of "discursive ethics."

This method, which was formulated by the philosophers Karl-Otto Apel and Jürgen Habermas, calls for a social consensus on this question — a consensus that can be established only through a public discussion, because responsibility is here being transferred from the individual to society as a whole.