Today we concluded a very satisfying (from my perspective anyway) seminar on Catholic Perspectives on American Law. One of our readings was Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon's chapter, "International Law: Foundation of Human Rights - The Unfinished Business." One of my students was interested in our thoughts to the following:
"Glendon writes:
The shift from nature to dignity in modern thinking about the foundations of human rights thus entails a host of difficulties. The common secular understandings are that human beings have dignity because they are autonomous beings capable of making choices (Kant), or because of the sense of empathy that most human beings feel for other sentient creatures (Rouseau). But the former understanding has alarming implications for persons of diminished capacity, and the latter places all morality on the fragile basis of transient feeling. Most believers, for their part, would say that dignity is grounded in the fact that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, but that proposition is unintelligible to nonbelievers.
According to Glendon, then, Kant and Rouseau present incomplete explanations of the source of human dignity because some people lack the very characteristics that, by definition, qualify them for such. Believers, on the other hand, attribute human dignity to the Creator. Since all human beings are children of a loving God, all have dignity regardless of condition or circumstance. Glendon recognizes, however, that this conception of human dignity is not readily accessible to nonbelievers.
This discussion seems to necessarily require determining which of the choices is better: an arguably incomplete human anthropology (like Kant’s, for example, based on autonomous choice) or a correct conception of human dignity that is “unintelligible to nonbelievers.”
I’m interested to hear the thoughts of others."
BTW, the Catholic Perspectives on American Law book, linked above, would make a great Christmas present for the lawyer or law student in your life.
The gracious tone of Sen. John McCain’s
election-night concession speech was both impressive and reassuring,
especially his call for Americans to bridge abiding differences and
forge the “necessary compromises” the nation requires. Unfortunately,
that tone and sentiment were lacking in the response of many Catholic
bishops to Barack Obama’s victory.
Most striking were the public statements made
by apparently outraged bishops during the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops fall meeting in Baltimore, November 11. Cardinal
Francis George, president of the USCCB, released a brief official
statement the following day, reflecting the bishops’ concerns over the
supposedly imminent threat posed by President-elect Obama’s support for
the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). The remarks of many bishops during
the televised portion of the meeting were intemperate and polarizing,
and their panic over FOCA is premature.
FOCA, which evidently aims to outlaw any
restriction of access to abortion—such as late-term bans or parental
con-sent for minors—is a piece of abortion-rights propaganda that was
introduced in Congress in its earliest form in 1989. The bill has never
gotten out of committee, even during the Clinton administration, and
appears to be more a fundraising device and a rallying cry for
prochoice groups than a serious piece of legislation. Its wording is
imprecise, and the bill’s attempt to establish a fundamental right to
abortion by statute is probably unconstitutional. Aside from one
statement Obama made to an abortion-rights group eighteen months ago,
support for FOCA did not play a significant part in his campaign. His
commitment to work to reduce the number of abortions played a much
larger part. Is it possible that this very divisive piece of
legislation will now leap to the top of the new president’s agenda?
True, Obama’s support for abortion rights is unambiguous, and politics
is an unpredictable business. But it seems unlikely that the new
president will seek to intensify the culture wars (a conflict he has
repeatedly promised to mitigate) by aggressively pursuing such radical
legislation. If he does, his effort to build a broad political
coalition that embraces prolife voters will end in bitter
disappointment and recrimination.
It is not surprising that the bishops
vigorously oppose FOCA. They should. What is disconcerting is how
opposition to the bill became the focus of their response to Obama’s
election. Evidently goaded by a worst-case reading of the bill’s
possible impact, and by tendentious speculation about Obama’s
intentions, many bishops demanded that a confrontational approach be
taken toward the new administration. “This body is totally opposed to
any compromise,” proclaimed one bishop. “We are dealing with an
absolute,” said another, “there is no room for compromise.” Others
called for a “war” against abortion, and urged the church to adopt an
unyielding “prophetic” voice.
Prophecy has its place, but if citizens bring
only absolute demands into the political arena, democratic deliberation
and consensus-building become impossible. As the political philosopher
Michael Walzer reminds us in his essay “Drawing the Line: Religion and
Politics,” decision-making in a pluralistic democracy “requires an
acceptance of the open, pragmatic, contingent, uncertain, inconclusive,
and tolerant character of all arguments, positions, and alliances on
the political side of the line.” Rejection of compromise, Walzer warns,
is a “kind of political escapism, where what is being escaped is the
day-in, day-out negotiation of difference.”
Changing the practice of abortion in this
country will first require changing the hearts and minds of millions of
its citizens. Important progress has been made in this regard, but it
is fragile and easily reversed when the prolife movement is perceived
as hostile to the political process itself or ideologically extreme, as
the defeat of yet another referendum outlawing abortion in South Dakota
showed in November. When the bishops speak and act in ways that seem
designed to preclude political compromise, they fall into this trap.
Some bishops may see themselves as harried prophets speaking to an
unhearing people. But the unborn need more than prophets. They need the
most persuasive political advocates possible, advocates who recognize
the necessity of bridging differences and striking compromises in order
to save lives. As Bishop Blase J. Cupich of South Dakota cautioned his
colleagues, “Keep in mind a prophecy of denunciation quickly wears
thin, and it seems to me what we need is a prophecy of solidarity, with
the community we serve and the nation that we live in.”
The bishops must find that voice again, and
put it to good use in the ongoing struggle against the violence of
abortion and the host of other ills plaguing this nation. Anything
less, as Walzer notes, is escapism.
Thanks to those whose votes have propelled MOJ to (so far) the top of the heap in the "professors" category of the ABA's "Best Law Blogs". Haven't voted yet? Get on over, then . . . here.
Here is a fascinating exchange (read also the comments) between Peter Singer (Princeton) and Michael Berube, whose child has Down's Syndrome. This comment, from "Father of Tommy", seems especially important:
Why should our expectations of others be a criterion for moral judgment as to their rights? Is it that our expectations are some kind of reliable indicator of what others are capable of? As your examples show, that is likely false, particularly in instances where theorizers are trying to come up with reasons for killing other human beings.
Why don’t we actually look at what they are capable of, rather than sit in our offices and seminar rooms talking about what we expect of them?
But then why should what they are actually capable of be a criterion for moral judgment as to their rights? Do we recognize disabilities? To recognize a disability tacitly recognizes that an individual of a certain kind is suffering. It is not a disability for a worm not to be able to see. But if one recognizes the suffering of another human being, why then not do what one can to alleviate the suffering, rather than destroy the sufferer?
I have a confession to make. I cannot seem to get over the election. No, not the one held in early November, but the one made public this past Sunday afternoon. Oklahoma jumped past Texas in the BCS poll (although there is a rumor of stolen percentage points) this past week despite Texas thumping Oklahoma 45-35 earlier in the season. The Big 12 title game this coming Saturday can appropriately be referred to as the Big 12 JV Championship or the Big 12 Consolation Championship since Texas beat the two contestants (Oklahoma and Missouri) by a combined total of 35 points.
To any voters in the Coach's poll or the Harris poll who happen to read our blog (I have it on good authority that there are many), I hope that you vote Texas ahead of OU next week unless OU beats Missouri by more than the 35 point margin of victory by which Texas vanquished OU and Missouri.
In this very interesting-looking new(ish) journal, I believe I have discovered (yet) another diverting time-suck. "An interdisciplinary journal of critical reflections on contemporary culture" . . . what's not to like?
A former student of mine -- also a graduate of Bob Jones University -- has been involved in an effort (on Facebook and elsewhere) called "Please Reconcile", which is seeking to push the University to confront, and apologize for, its history of racial discrimination. Apparently in response, the University has issued this statement. Interesting.
At my behest, Greg Wolfe has kindly responded to my posts here, here, here, here, and here:
I am grateful to Michael Scaperlanda for engaging my reflections on the culture wars and politicization so thoughtfully.
It's true that legal thought has a natural tie to politics -- but law also relates to culture in important ways. An extension of my thesis would be that legal scholars should think more about how culture shapes law.
(I happily acknowledge that politics and law can shape culture, but I also happen to believe that too much stress has been placed on that directionality.)
Politics and law help to adjudicate competing visions -- visions that are shaped by story and symbol, which well up from the culture.
In particular, legal studies would be enriched by a study of narrative -- by the way narratives that give meaning to our lives.
Think of the way that abortion has been depicted in film -- for example, "Vera Drake," "The Cider House Rules," and others.
These stories shape what we think of when we hear a word like "choice."
My argument, in short, is that we've spent too little time and resources on transforming the culture through narrative and beyond.
At any rate, thanks to Michael for his generous response to my work. I'm grateful to know about your blog and the good work you are doing.
If I can leave with parting advertisement, you can learn more about my work at the IMAGE journal website:
We too have a daily blog, "Good Letters," which is available on our home page or as an RSS feed. Our mission is to publish narratives, poems, paintings, etc. that are animated by the Judeo-Christian tradition of faith.
