What follows is a transcript of an interview with Professor Robert P. George, conducted by Ethan Grover (’26) and Lauren Zuravel (’28) on October 27, 2025. They sat down to discuss Professor George’s perspective on the most pressing issues in bioethics.
Ethan and Lauren:
Just as a background, how do you define bioethics, and how would you recommend that we evaluate normative moral claims that are made within the field?
Prof. George:
Bioethics addresses moral questions that arise in relation to medical practice and biomedical research. That’s a very broad range of questions today. Many of them are questions that are new in human affairs because technologies have been developed which present new challenges to our thinking about good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust in relation to medical practice and biomedical research.
Ethan and Lauren:
I know that in your work, “Body Self-Dualism in Contemporary Politics”, you discuss the idea of the human body as being an essential element of the human person. How does your position differ from positions like mind-body dualism, as presented by thinkers like Descartes or Spinoza, and how does it influence the way you consider issues like gene editing or organ harvesting or things like CRISPR?
Prof. George:
Well, a lot of issues in bioethics — not every single one, but an awful lot of issues in bioethics — will have one complexion rather than another depending on what you understand the human person to be. Another way of putting that is that an awful lot will turn for many issues on what philosophical anthropology you hold to be most true.
For those who embrace self-body dualism, the self is essentially a non-bodily substance. It may require a body in order to exist, but the person is the conscious and desiring self or the deliberating or reasoning or feeling aspect of the self. The body in this view is not considered to be part of the personal reality of the self, the human being, but is rather an extrinsic instrument that is used by the true self — the psyche, the spirit, the mind, the center of consciousness — as an instrument, to achieve satisfactions or other goals in the psyche. On the self-body dualistic view, you could, for example, have a human being, a biological reality, that is not (or is not yet, or is no longer) a person. That body could be the body of a pre-personal human being or a non-personal human being. So for people who distinguish body and person, it’s at least possible in principle for there to be pre-personal human beings, and, indeed, human beings who are not now, never were, and never will be persons.
In my view, there could be no such thing as a pre-personal or post-personal or non-personal human being. The evidence that you have a human person is that you have a human body. Because again, the body — far from being an extrinsic instrument of the self substantially distinct from the psyche considered as the real self — is part of the personal reality of the human being. The body is every bit as much an aspect of the self as is the mind, or the psyche, or the center of consciousness.
My view, which understands person and body as a dynamic unity, is called hylomorphism. Its founding father in the Western tradition of thought is really Aristotle. For people who take my view, there is no such thing as a human being who’s not a person. There’s no such thing as a human nonperson. Until you’re dead, and therefore are no longer a human being, you’re a person; and you share whatever rights persons have, and duties are owed to you, just as they’re owed to any other person, despite the fact that you may be debilitated or not yet capable, or are no longer capable, of deliberation, judgment, choice, sentience, or self awareness.
Ethan and Lauren:
I suppose that hylomorphism really changes your perspective on how you would consider these issues – that it makes you think of the human never in a pre-personal sense, but always in the present-personal; in the sense that they are inherently and fully person at all moments of their existence.
Prof. George:
Yeah, that’s right. You come into being as a person and you don’t cease being a person without ceasing to be. Now, that’s different from a view that says, you come into being as someone who’s not yet a person and later become a person, and you can cease being a person before you die.
Now, people who adopt the view that I reject, who embrace, whether self-consciously or merely implicitly, person-body dualism, I commend for one thing: although I think their view is wrong. I rarely hear them say silly things like, “We don’t know when human life begins, or we don’t know when the life of a human being begins.” They know perfectly well when the life of a human being begins, and they know it’s at the point that a new and genetically and functionally distinct organism comes into being. So, the life of a human being begins at the point of embryogenesis — that is, from the earliest embryonic stage. And they know when the life of a human being ends – it’s with it complete and irreversible cessation of integral organic functioning. So, to their credit, they are not confused about the scientific facts. It’s just that they believe that you can have a human being who’s not yet or is no longer a person, and that’s what I deny. Our dispute, then, is not about the science; our dispute is precisely on the question of philosophical anthropology. What does it mean to be a human person?
Ethan And Lauren:
Many people have thrown around the term transhumanism to describe the ideal of humans being “improved” through technological enhancements which change the physical nature of the person. An example that people often provide is Neuralink. Proponents of this philosophy suggest it could improve the quality of life for people and lead to further technological advancements. In your opinion, how does Natural Law, particularly “New” Natural Law, respond to this type of theory, traditionally? What degree of skepticism ought we to hold towards the idea of technology becoming somewhat more integrated with the human person?
Prof. George:
There are lots of places where technology can be used to heal and to help human beings, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that and a lot that’s right with it. We want to support and enhance the flourishing of human beings in every way we can — every legitimate way we can and every ethically sound way we can. So my understanding of morality or natural law does not take a skeptical view of technology at all.
On the contrary, I welcome it, but only to the extent that it is consistent with an understanding of the person as a psychosomatic whole or unity and of the flourishing of the person considered as a dynamic unity of body and psyche. So, if transhumanism means that the goal is to eliminate our bodiliness, download the contents of our minds to computers, then I think that is anti-human, because our humanity does not consist exclusively in our intellects or psyches; our bodies are aspects of ourselves as human persons. Unlike the transhumanists, I don’t want to try to replace the body. I think that is the road to perdition. But if technology can heal us when we’re sick, if it can help us to overcome impediments that are either congenital or arise because of accidents or illnesses, I have no problem with that.
If we could come up with ways to solve the organ shortage problem, which involves, say, mechanical parts, I see no objection to that. So, I’m not kind of phobic about the bionic human being or anything like that. And the same with the mind. Now, I am worried about at least some efforts at enhancement, because I don’t see any motive for that that doesn’t give me grave pause about our treating the human being as an object, a thing, an instrument, a product. So, you know, if somebody says, I’ve got a technology that will make sure that our daughters are all five foot 10 and have hourglass shapes and blue eyes and blonde hair, and IQs of 120, I say, “Hang on.” You know, you’re valuing the wrong things here – you’re not valuing the human being intrinsically here. You’re falling off the cliff of valuing human beings by their physical or intellectual qualities. So there I draw the line.
Ethan and Lauren:
In your work titled, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, you discuss the moral value of human embryos. What are the key philosophical and scientific bases you use for considering embryos as persons with dignity, and how does this affect the way that we ought to consider bioethical questions?
Prof. George:
Well, my argument is for the fundamental and equal dignity of all members of the human family irrespective of race and ethnicity and sex and so forth, to be sure, but also irrespective of age or size or stage of development or condition of dependency or location. The argument that I use in Embryo: A Defense of Human Life and in my other writings, has two dimensions, one is scientific, and one is, strictly speaking, philosophical. The scientific one is just to marshal the literally undeniable facts of modern science, which show that contrary to what was supposed by, for example, Aristotle prior to the development of modern human embryology, from the point of embryogenesis you have a whole living member of the species of Homo sapiens — in the biological sense, a human being — who, if provided with nothing more than what any of the rest of us need at any other developmental stage need, will develop himself or herself by an internally directive process — not by external action — into and through the fetal infant, child, and adolescent stages, and ultimately, if all goes well, no injuries, no illnesses that killed the human being, into adulthood with his or her determinateness, unity, and identity fully intact. Neither you nor Ryan nor anybody else on the planet was ever an egg cell or a sperm cell. Those were parts of other human beings, both functionally and genetically. But every single one of us was once an embryo, just as every single one of us was once an adolescent and before that, a child and before that, an infant and before that, a newborn and before that, a fetus and before that, an embryo. The you, that is you today, is the same you that was the embryonic you. As a matter of scientific fact, as a matter of biological continuity, it’s simply undeniable.
*****
Ethan and Lauren:
Going off that, since abortion is such a highly debated topic, how do you propose that conservatives advocate for their beliefs when it’s such a difficult topic to discuss with such differing opinions on it?
Prof. George:
Well, we defend them in the same way we should defend any of our other moral beliefs. That is in a spirit of love, recognizing that there are people who disagree with us, that the dignity of those people has to be respected in the argument. We should not assume that our knowledge is perfect; it’s not, none of us has perfect knowledge, which means that we should debate with others in a spirit of listening, as well as teaching, with a willingness to learn, as well as to as to teach. And yet at the same time, given that I think we’re entitled to a very high degree of confidence in our opinion on the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions, I think we should argue with determination and with the will to achieve providing legal protection to all members of the human family. I think we need to understand that our opponents, especially on abortion, are not arguing out of malice or ill will or hatred. They are not the equivalent of racists or Nazis. They are concerned, and they are rightly concerned with the autonomy and flourishing of women. I think we should acknowledge that pregnancy imposes genuine burdens, especially on women who are having problem pregnancies or pregnancies that they aren’t prepared for. Those are real matters. And they’re not to be lightly dismissed. I think we should argue that the way to address those matters is not by killing anybody.
And the whole problem with abortion is that it’s killing an innocent human being. But I think we need to be sympathetic and not only sympathetic, but willing to work with people on the other side to address the real problems that real women really face in many cases. I was recruited into the pro-life movement when I was an adolescent by my mother. She and a group of women, they’re almost all women, in our town formed a pro-life group. And my mother taught me to argue for the defense of human life very vigorously, but at the same time, my mother also not only taught, but led by example, in reaching out to women, especially where we lived. Young women, who found themselves pregnant without a husband or without a source of economic support, perhaps being thrown out of the house by her parents. I was brought up in a time and at a time and in a place where those things were not uncommon. So, my mother would always be there for any girl who needed support, needed help, financial help, emotional support, a place to stay, and I think that should be the whole spirit of our movement. But I reject the idea that it has to be either or. I think it has to be both and. We fight for the inherent and equal dignity of each and every member of the human family, including the unborn child in the womb. And we work to come to the aid of our precious sisters and daughters in need, facing real problems that cannot just be waved away. So that’s what my approach has been since I was 13 years old, and it’s from my mom.
Ethan and Lauren:
I suppose a different topic would be the development of artificial wombs, which has more recently become a realistic possibility in the near future. Some people claim that this is going to help with mortality rates as well as help relieve burdens on women. How do you view this from a bioethical standpoint? Would such a development redefine how we view pregnancy, parenthood, and the family unit?
Prof. George:
Again, I think that we have to keep our focus on the inherent dignity of the human being, the difference between the human being as a subject and the reduction of the human being to the status of a mere object. Human beings should never be regarded as products of manufacture; even in their very coming to be, they should not be treated as products of manufacture. The great English philosopher, and theologian, Oliver O’Donovan notes the distinction between being begotten and being made. So a child who is begotten by the love of the parents, coming together in the act that unites man and woman, as one flesh, the foundation of their marriage is not treated as an object. But once we began to replace the coming to be of children by marital union with technologies, we were not just at risk, we were already treating the child as an object. And that’s bad. Now, there are technologies, including, one can imagine, technologies that are meant to be life sustaining where a child could not otherwise survive, that we should affirm. Basically, this is what we have in mind when we talk about a child being in an incubator, a very, very premature child, say, a child born at 24 weeks or even 23 weeks. So now we’re down to 22 or maybe even 21 and a half weeks. That child is going to need technology to survive. And availing ourselves of that life-sustaining technology is good. What I think would not be good would be to suppose that, well, why don’t we just spare women the burdens of pregnancy by transferring children, if the technology develops to make this possible, from the very earliest stage to artificial wombs. This is going to be manufacturing. This now begins to look like, feel like, and indeed, begins to become factory production. It’s not strictly speaking, even procreation anymore. It’s production. And the production of children is simply inconsistent with their dignity. It does treat them as objects. And sure enough, when we’ve gone down this road, what have we done? We’ve been imposing quality controls, just like you do when you’re manufacturing products. You throw out the ones that are “defective” — and we are already seeing this.
So, I think the time is now to say, “Nope, stop, reverse course, we’re not going down that road. We want children to be begotten, not made.” We want that out of respect for their inherent dignity.
Ethan and Lauren:
I think to add to that, we’ve seen developments of technologies, like CRISPR, for example. Many have discussed using this technology to select from certain traits to create ideal people. Others have also suggested that whenever someone is flagged for having a life debilitating condition that we use CRISPR to prevent the child from developing into a chronically sick person. What do you think about that? Do you think that type of gene editing falls down a slippery slope?
Prof. George:
Yeah, I don’t think that there’s something inherently bad about CRISPR or other gene editing technologies, so long as they’re used within the bounds of a morality that is fundamentally shaped by the understanding that human beings are subjects, not objects, persons, not things. So, we might helpfully note a distinction between therapy and enhancement. It’s one thing to try to create a better human being: smarter, prettier, taller, stronger. That’s one thing. And I think that’s a dangerous road to go down, and I would oppose it. It’s another thing to say that we should use a technology to help a child who is born with a condition, say, genetic condition, that makes it likely even certain that she will develop breast cancer.
If we could do a therapy, a genetic therapy, that would enable her to avoid the need for a pre-emptive mastectomy, and the risks that would come with breast cancer, if she didn’t have the mastectomy, then I see no reason at all not to develop that therapy. That’s just a good thing. But here again, you’re not trying to create a race of human beings that are, say , 5’10, blue eyes, blonde hair, 1570 SATs, and so forth. We’re not going down the road to eugenics.
Ethan and Lauren:
Looking ahead towards the future of bioethics, and to all the different technologies that may one day be created, how can we as conservatives argue respectfully and thoughtfully and beneficially to hold true to our values and uphold human dignity?
Prof. George:
Well, I go back to my point about needing to engage with others in a truly truth-seeking spirit, knowing that even if we’re confident in the soundness of our views, which I think we have reason to be in these bioethical areas, and therefore we should fight with determination, we’re still fallible. And our knowledge is always partial. It’s never complete. So we should engage with others in a truth-seeking spirit, and that means with a willingness to listen, to entertain their arguments, not to dismiss them, to yield on any points where they’re right and we’re wrong, if they can show us, with reasons, with evidence, with arguments — to value the truth more than our own opinions, and be willing to change our minds if compelling evidence, or sound arguments are made in the other direction. Yet, at the same time, we can and should stand robustly for what we believe in, because I do believe, especially in these bioethics areas, we have extremely good evidence and reasons for our beliefs, and I think we are justified in holding our beliefs with a high degree of confidence.
Of course, we also have to realize that we don’t get to dictate things, that we live in a democracy. Now, the other side doesn’t get to dictate things either. Nobody gets to dictate things. We have to vie for the allegiance of our fellow citizens by making the best arguments in the public square, not manipulating people, not bullying people, but putting forth our case gracefully and persuasively.
Ethan and Lauren:
Thank you, Professor George. I read one of your recent articles titled: “It’s Time to Hold the Line Against the Culture of Death.” In it, you discuss the startling trend of assisted suicide in countries like Canada. Please tell us more about this work and your bioethical concerns with assisted suicide and why you think it’s become so popular and agreed upon today.
Prof. George:
Well, I would imagine that the answer to the question “why is this happening today?” is, as the social scientist says, multivariate. There’s no single explanation. I think the sense of disenchantment, the loss of respect for the sanctity of human life generally, has a lot to do with it. That is not unconnected with secularization, which so often — not always, but to a very large degree — imbues people with the sense that all that there is, and therefore all that can matter, is materiality.
So, the idea that there could be something like human dignity, which is not material, becomes obscure. I also think that there are powerful economic interests that push us in the direction of killing for convenience. Medical care, especially at the end of life, is expensive. Canada has a government-provided healthcare system. There is, as always, financial precarity, and there will be a temptation to save money. So why have somebody for six months or a year or two years, using, consuming, expensive healthcare when you could just get rid of them? And especially if you could create a cultural environment in which they’re encouraged to want to get rid of themselves or to be gotten rid of, where they’re taught by the culture to think of a certain kind of quality of life as maybe not worth living – where people are encouraged and think of themselves if they continue living as “burdens” to themselves and others.
And I think all of that is very, very bad and very dangerous. It begins with the hardest possible cases, the cases that really tug at our hearts, The person is suffering, he or she is near-death anyway, and why not put the person out of his or her suffering — especially since the person has no hope of recovering and it’s just a matter of a few days or a couple of weeks or whatever. And then, no sooner is that put into place, than all the so-called guardrails begin to collapse. So now, well, maybe the person doesn’t have to be terminal to be encouraged to kill himself or be euthanized, so long as they’re suffering. And then the next step is, well, suffering can be mental as well as physical, so what if it’s mental suffering? Someone experiencing mental anguish should have the right to do away with herself or have herself done away with. And then the next thing you know, you’re down the road to killing minors who are suffering from depression. It’s very bad, and if the history of the human species teaches us anything, it teaches us that people can easily rationalize killing when the people to be killed are inconvenient or unwanted. So, I would hope that in this late season of human experience, we could, for once say, no. Killing is not the answer. Caring is the answer. We’re not going to kill – we’re going to care.
Image Credit – Wikimedia Commons
Copyright © 2026 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.