Okay, I'm really not going to be able to deliver on the title of the post. But I do want to indicate in broad outline how it is that the recent posts on soteriology (human nature, person, will and freedom) with all their "high-falutin'" jargon actually matter in the here and now.
Take the thesis that I defended yesterday, namely that personhood precedes nature, existence precedes essence. This, to my mind, has profound implications for such social-moral matters as euthanasia, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, etc. For if a human is a being by virtue of being a person, then Christians (who derive that belief from the Trinity) are obligated by virtue of their faith to reject euthanasia (the active human intervention to make death--and not just a death--happen), abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and so forth.
If one argues that it is being a human being that gives rise to being a person, then one can argue that a embryo is human, but not yet a person. It is merely a potential person. Therefore, since it is not yet a person, we are justified in our utilitarian manipulation of this human thing. We may create as many of these human things as we want, and so long as we are only dealing with potential and not actual persons, we may feel free to do with them as we want. They're mere property: we can will them to others, sell them, and patent the various genetic manipulations we are able to do on them.
But if embryos, by virtue of their conception are persons who are human, the whole ethical paradigm shifts. Now we are dealing with beings who are, from the start, persons, and entitled to all the protections, morally and legally, we as fellow persons are obligated to provide for them. We are morally prohibited from doing anything to them that is not intended to be for them. That is to say, they are not objects of research but subjects for care.
The implications for abortion are a no-brainer.
But what about severe incapacitation or so-called "end-of-life" issues? What about persons who everyone acknowledges are persons, but are incapacitated? What about persons whose bodies are dying? Indeed, what about the dead? Here the matter is even more clear. For if we are persons prior to any objectively measurable property by which we normally judge humans to be persons (for example, autonomy, which entails cognition, self-awareness) then we are persons posterior to any such measures as well. Thus, personhood is not a measure of cognitive abilities, self-awareness or other such canons. Personhood is the canon by which those properties themselves derive. Thus, those whose severe incapacitation renders them observably detached from their environment deserve as much attention and care as those who respond. The "detached" have no more ceased to be persons than have we who care for them.
Obviously, however, euthanasia advocates want to base personhood on nature, and thus, when persons lose the capacities inherent to human nature, they cease to be persons. From there the rest follows.
In other words, it is not human nature that guards personhood, as our current U. S. society makes all-too horrifyingly clear. Rather, it is personhood that guards what it means to be human. We are irreducably human because we are fundamentally persons.
And now I need to go help the little person trying to get my attention use the potty.
Posted by Clifton at April 13, 2005 07:16 AM | TrackBackI think you lump euthenasiaists (sp?!) together into a group inappropriately. Sometimes the patients themselves desire to die...and not because they cease to be people, but pecause they wish to preserve their personhood, which is derived from liberty to choose, our createdness.
Blah...sorry, this is jumbled.
When Bob decided for himself that he would rather not ever live on a machine if there is no hope for "meaningful recovery," then how are we denying Bob's personhood if we fulfill his wishes?
Posted by: Tripp at April 13, 2005 09:38 AMTripp:
Two things. My argument is that our personhood is not derived from liberty to choose. We are not the sum of human properties that inhere in our nature. Rather our liberty to choose comes from our personhood. Thus any choice that results in the suppression of personhood is not an ethical choice. That is to say, the ultimate principle is personhood not libertarian choice.
Second: We need to do something the lazy, incomptent media doesn't do--carefully distinguish between actual dying and wanting to die. If someone is actually dying, we need not think it a diminishing of their personhood to allow the natrual death process to continue. But we need also to be careful that we do not actively hasten the process. And this is what euthanasia seeks to do. That is to say there is a significant moral difference between euthanasia (a lying term, by the way) and hospice. Hospice respects personhood, or fundamentally can do so. Euthanasia cannot by its very nature do so.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at April 13, 2005 09:52 AMThat is to say, the ultimate principle is personhood not libertarian choice.Right. No voting in church. ;-)
Hospice respects personhood, or fundamentally can do so. Euthanasia cannot by its very nature do so.I see. The trouble here is that what you describe as personhood is not what AMERICA suggests is personhood. Some Americans do, yes, but your definition of personhood is not even Constitutional. Do you realize this? If I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then I can choose to hasten my death (eg. I have stage four pancreatic cancer and have four weeks to live...why wait?) if that is an expression of happiness and liberty.
Autonomy and liberty are connected in this culture. I am not disagreeing with your theology, here, Cliff. I am holding in contrast to the Constitution. As it stands, our country was founded upon autonomy and not your definition of the person. Autonomy means we vote. Autonomy means we protest. Autonomy means freedom of religion, the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech.
That is the popular wisdom at least.
What you suggest would subvert the current government. You are a subversive, my friend, and you did not even know it! Heh!
Posted by: Tripp at April 13, 2005 10:04 AM"What you suggest would subvert the current government..."
That's what authentic Christianity always does. :)
Posted by: Karl Thienes at April 13, 2005 10:16 AMOn the contrary, Tripp, I don't think I'm in such contrast as you claim.
Under my argument, autonomy and liberty would still be connected, but would be connected in personhood which grounds them both.
We intuitively get this in our society, it seems to me. After all the "death with dignity" tripe, for all its smarmy Wal-Mart-style franchising, at least acknowledges that the dignity inheres in personhood. It's just that they don't go on to connect the dots. If dignity inheres in personhood, then it is personhood that grounds all the other properties of our nature as well.
Of course the specifically Christian nature of my argument will not sit well with some, like the anti-religious liberal wackos. But no U. S. citizen can deny that our government and our understanding of rights grew from the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
and that
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Even though those two citations are conjoined immediately, I have separated them so as to note that on the basis of a prima facie reading, rights to these things inhere in people on the basis of creation. That is to say, persons come prior to their rights, and to the things their rights are designed to secure for them.
Indeed, governments themselves are founded not on natural rights, but on the consensual acts of persons. Even the governmental security of the rights of persons is circumscribed by the persons (and not the human natures) in whom those rights inhere.
That being said, is my thinking subversive to present-day understanding of personhood and how rights are conceptualized and applied? Sure.
Too bad for present-day understanding.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at April 13, 2005 10:22 AMThe Constitution is a profoundly Cartesian document. The personhood presupposed is a Cartesian one...this was the definition of liberty at the time. What you suggest is a differing definition. I doubt anyone had Augustine in mind when they said "liberty." Liberty means "control" to Americans.
And there is no consensual act of anything in our system. Not that there are many better ways of doing things. I am no utopianist. But the attitude of "He's not my president. I didn't vote for him." is not unusual. The term limit is designed to protect us from our leadership because they cannot rightly represent all of us. Everyone gets a turn, or the chance at a turn, and that is about it. We get no better. Thus, the law of the land allows for abortion at the present time. It has gone back and forth and will continue to do so. Slavery did. Heck, we abolished alcohol for a time. Then we came back the other way and now people want to leagalize drugs.
The Congress will be controlled by Democrats again some day. Republicans the next. We all have voice, but the heeding of those voices is dictated by who holds power. This is not consensus. Thus, autonomy is individual and party based, federalist and states' rights...We do not get our way all the time. We take turns understanding that we have the right to autonomy (within the common good - hotly debated though it is), that nothing is permanent.
The impermanence (spelling?! ME!? Never!) is how the autonomy is upheld. The laws can always be changed. "Don't tred on me" is still our mantra. If you don't like it, lobby your senator.
Blah, blah, blah.
I think you are imposing your understandings of liberty and personhood upon the Constitution. This most certainly is your right, as we are all free in this country to express our religious beliefs. I simply think that you may be jumping the gun to assume that Jefferson and the like agree with you.
Posted by: Tripp at April 13, 2005 10:36 AMOne of the proximate causes for the whole American experiment is the restlessness of citizens of the British Isles for the right to exercise their own religion. The Pilgrims were motivated to great extent by wanting to escape mediation. The discourse of religion online thrives under non-coercive conditions. For religion to come truly to expression, the circumstances must be fully non-coercive. We could not flourish spiritually if a monitor dictated under what terms we must participate.Here is another thought. Perhaps utilizing the government is the wrong way to go here, Cliff. Maybe we are barking up the wrong tree to even be speaking of the Constitution. Posted by: Tripp at April 13, 2005 10:44 AM
Tripp:
SHOULDN'T YOU BE WRITING A GRANT PROPOSAL??!! ;-)
Actually, it would probably be more accurate to say that the Framers' understanding of personhood was Lockean. But then Locke's understanding was pretty much Cartesian, so . . .
Two things. I do not think Cartesian personhood a necessary barrier to the sort I am arguing for. That is to say, it can be made to fit. The main difference between me and Cartesian personhood is that Cartesianism is mind-body dualism, whereas I espouse an emsouled body. I think you can make Cartesianism still start from personhood as opposed to natural properties.
But secondly, even if the Framers' understanding did oppose my own, under current understandings of Constitutional interpretation, as long as I can get a majority of U. S. citizens to agree with me, then that is the sort of judges that will be appointed. Voila. Done and done.
(That last paragraph was only partially in jest.)
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at April 13, 2005 10:54 AMRe: last paragraph
Then you would have the United Orthodox States of Amerikay. Um, is that wise, O Great Interlocutor? You really want to marry the church with the White House? I am not sure the church should have so many guns...or naval bases in Japan.
;-)
Off to write grants!
Posted by: Tripp at April 13, 2005 10:56 AMI don't see the connections of your citation the way you do.
Nothing I've said here speaks of coercion. It's not as though I'm advocating for limiting choice and autonomy per se. But that we so limit those personal qualities and acts is obvious. I am autonomous and can rationally choose various ends. But the government won't let me marry my sister. I can't drive 75 mph through a school zone. And I'm not allowed to burn my trash in my backyard (here in Chicago). Yet in all these I could argue pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
So I see no legitimate reason why simply because I have an argument that derives from religious principles I should think it won't be espoused. I may have to argue my case in specifically secular language (which is essentially what I'm doing in these comments), but that I successfully see it enacted doesn't necessarily entail abridgement of others' freedoms.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at April 13, 2005 11:01 AMGeez, Tripp, take it down a thousand. Orthodoxy (or Christianity) isn't the only religion out there, nor is it the case that nothing that is argued for in the political realm is ipso facto non-religious. Secularism is, after all, a religion.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at April 13, 2005 11:03 AMre: Amerikay - I was funnin'. Don't take me so serious like.
I think I need to post on that University of Chicago thing and how the courts see religious freedom these days. Very interesting stuff.
Posted by: Tripp at April 13, 2005 11:16 AM*Sniff* Well, Tripp, if you can't see how insensitive your comments are to us Religious-American minorites, then, *sniff* well, I don't know what, but it's bad.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at April 13, 2005 11:19 AM*minorities*
We're also keyboard-challenged.
*Sniff*
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at April 13, 2005 11:20 AMre: teeball and the land of the inappropriate
Challenged as you may be, you have your right to happiness and the autonomy granted to you by the Government of the United States of Amerikay*. By the by, I got yer insensitivity right here, baby. I'm Baptist. We ain't here to be sensitive. We just want you wet.
*All rights and privileges herein based upon elections results, hurricanes in Florida and the employment opportunities in Chicago Public Schhols and Disney Corporation a.k.a. "Cartesian Mouse House."
Posted by: Tripp at April 13, 2005 11:30 AMTripp,
Yours is certainly a truly despairing view of the "intent" of the founding fathers and the constitution. Many agree with you, that it says whatever we happen to say it says at the moment. Of course, "conservatives" have been saying something else all along (I am thinking of Scalia's reading of the constitution).
Fortunately, in my experience, those who think of it as you do realize the horror of the philosophy and end up trying to sneak something else into their reading. Just as a majority of us recognized the personhood of "the Negro", we someday will recognize the truth about an unborn child, a dying person, etc.
Part of the problem is that when the "quiet" branch started to assert itself into the power vacuum that the legislative branch left, we get to where we are today where you can say in all seriousness that "abortion is the law of the land", and we understand what you mean, even though there most certainly is no such law...