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.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
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.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
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.
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:
http://imagejournal.org/
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.
Cordially,
Greg Wolfe
