According to a recent Chicago Tribune article, pro-lifers (now referred to as anti-abortion-ers) are finally pursuing legal personhood for embryos. The Trib also printed a side article that covered the responses of "Ethicists." The ethicists worried that person-embryos would lead to the policing of the actions of mothers (smokers and the like), they complained that person-embryos would lead doctors to have to make ethical decisions regarding the embryo's life versus the mother's, and they whined that a new branch of law would be created, just to sort out these issues. Apparently, ethics no longer has anything to do with morality or right and wrong. Ethics, according to the "ethicists," is a question of convenience. If the right thing is hard to do, says the modern ethicist, just forget it. Convenience defines right action.
Evolutionary theories of morality have been gaining ground recently. This article shows exactly why they would never work. These evolutionary theories all depend on animal choices that benefit their species as a whole (just as the ethicists were thinking of the convenience of all people), since these tend to be the most reproducible. However, human ethics and morality (the ones that we actually experience) depend on self-sacrifice and the protection of the innocent. Evolutionary ethicists look at a weaker person and say "nature will take care of him"; a real ethicist looks at a weaker person and says, "I will take care of him."
