Naming the Source of Dignity: A Response

A student posed a question here and Fr. Araujo responded here.  This is a response from Richmond law student John O'Herron:

"Your most recent post and the question it poses are fascinating.  I am a law student at UR so my thoughts on this may be of little more value than your other students.  I did take a good deal of philosophy in college though (Christendom) so I am somewhat familiar with the issue presented.

 

The question obviously has massive implications for life issues: abortion, stem-cell, etc. One cannot claim that human stem-cells and unborn children have human rights (like the right to not be destroyed) if you accept Kant's reading of it.  So, Kant is out the door.  But I don't think the only alternative is faith-based.  Surely it is true that we have human dignity because we are made by God and in His image.  But I think its the case that we also have human dignity because of something distinct, yet related: our souls.

 

To understand the soul in a non-religious way (i.e., it isn't just the thing that shows we are made in God's image) is necessary. If we understand the human soul to be the life-animating thing that gives us our intellect and will, we see that humans alone have this "thing."  It is the very thing that makes us unique and the nature of that capacity make it something to be protected (sacred if you will, though not in the religious sense).  It is the soul that gives us those gifts.  However, not all people with souls have those gifts (the disabled etc.).  But those people still have that "thing" that makes humans special and unique.

 

It is the existence of the thing, and not necessarily the gifts that it imparts, that gives humans their dignity.  Therefore, those people so disabled as to not be able to exercise their intellect or will still retain their human dignity-they still have the very thing that makes them human, their soul. 

 

This isn't a fully developed argument, which would also require a foundation for what the soul is.  But I think that the general answer to your students question is that we can use the human soul as the basis for discussion and the basis for human rights.  We can make this argument to non-believers as well.  They too can (stress can) see that humans have an intellect and will that no other creature has.  Unless they are willing to say that disabled people have a different soul entirely (a different kind of thing that only gives life but not intellect and will), they must recognize that all people have this animating "thing.''  This conclusion has obvious implications for abortion as well (which is why the secular and philosophical argument for life works). 

 

I hope some of this made sense.  At a minimum, perhaps MOJers can discuss how we can discuss human rights in terms of the human soul without arguing faith.