In May, a story broke about how Korean scientists had made a significant breakthrough in therapeutic cloning for stem cell research.  At the time I thought, great, here is an example of how the society-centered orientation of Confucianism, even when attenuated by centuries of complex historical change, manifests itself in current affairs.  While liberal America (and I mean "liberal" here in the broadest sense of defending individual rights, rather like Alan Wolfe’s take on it, here) resists stem cell research, Confucian Korea (and maybe it is not quite fair to label the whole society as "Confucian") leaps to the forefront.

Now, I see this story from The Korea Times, in which a self-defined Korean Confucian comes out against stem cell research.  The money quote:

"`Confucianism firmly believes in human’s will to do and be good,’’ Choi was quoted by the institution’s periodical Yugyo Sinmun. “Because Confucianism is based on trust of humans it sees professor Hwang’s cloning research as an act that goes against the natural laws.’’

So, what’s up with that?

Mr. Choi is correct when he says that Confucianism is based on "trust of humans."  He could go farther and argue that reciprocity, and the "golden rule," are also central to Confucius’s own writing. Newcomers to the Analects are often surprised to see these kinds of passages:

Adept Kung asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about ‘shu’ [reciprocity; forbearance]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." (15:24)

And such reciprocity could be used as the basis for opposition of stem cell research: if stem cells are persons, or soon-to-become persons, then we should not destroy them because we ourselves would not want to be treated in that manner.

However, there is nothing I can find in Confucius that would endorse the view that stem cells are fully formed persons, or that potential personhood is morally the same as already-born personhood.  He does not have a lot to say about birth at all.  We may take this as one of his famous "silences."  Without getting into the intricacies of ancient Chinese society (which are beyond my ken in any event), I think it is safe to say that Confucianism is more supportive than obstructive to research like therapeutic cloning.

Over and against his silence on precisely when human life begins (and I strongly suspect the actual moment of physical birth makes a big difference for him), is Confucius’s often articulated insistence that a larger and beneficent social purpose may justify apparently unethical action.

Here is a story to illustrate (from Analects 14.14, 14.17) . Kuan Chung did not save his brother from death, seemingly failing to live up to his family responsibility, a serious shortcoming in a Confucian world view.  But Confucius did not condemn him for this failure, because after his brother’s death, Kuan Chung became Prime Minister (serving the very Lord who had killed his brother) and, from that vantage point, was able to "unite the nine lords without force, and so save the empire."  Confucius reserves for Kuan Chung the highest praise: "What Humanity! What amazing Humanity!" 

The point here is this: seemingly unethical action (be it stem cell research or not standing up for your brother) may be acceptable if larger social purposes are served (curing illnesses for large numbers of people or "uniting the nine lords").   And Korea’s historical experience (Confucianism was imported from China in roughly 14th-15th centuries) gives greater weight and depth to such communitarian claims than does American history and culture.  This is not to say that Korea – or China or Japan for that matter – march in rigid Confucian lock-step; but, rather, that there are more cultural resources to call upon to justify stem cell research.

In the end, then, Mr. Choi is wrong.