Note: The views of this and my other papers express my positions at that specific time. They may have changed since then.
I observe a common source underlying different interpretations of ethics. Reading the chapter on humanity in "In Defence of The Enlightenment", I noticed an important similarity between Christians and the deists of the Age of Enlightenment. The commonality is the seeking of happiness, done by love. In the same way that Aristotle posited the goal of ethics as being human flourishing, Hume, Diderot, Voltaire et al. saw the same. I am not writing as such to defend Christianity. But the goal of ethics being human happiness, identified by people as far distant as Aristotle and the enlightenment philosophers is the unifying heart of Christianity. The very meaning of God being love is the love of willing the good of the other. Although I think a loving god unlikely to exist, the idea of being holy as being a person transformed by love is a beautiful thing. Love is what gives rise to ethics, or, love is the virtue that helps us to live the two great aims - doing good and avoiding evil. This is at least clear. However, I see major differences in how this basic of ethics, this "ground" may be applied, depending on ones understanding of the human person.
Kant it appears had it right when he made it a basic principle of his moral philosophy of never treating people merely as a means to an end. A person can be a means to an end, but not merely so. One must respect their autonomy, never looking at people as things. Hence, it is for example gravely immoral for a rich man to casually pick out a person on the streets for their internal organs to be cut out to extend his life by an extra ten years. A person willingly giving their organs though is a different case, not one of mere use as a means to an end. I cannot say for certain, but it seems Kantian ethics works similarly to Christian ethics: working on the premise of the transcendent value of human beings. What is transcendent value? It is value that goes above or transcends the way people happen to be, good or bad. It means that a person's value does not depend on what they can do, what they contribute, their race, class, gender etc. Instead, humans having transcendent value means their worth transcends all these things. Transcendent human value means people are not given ethical regard based on what they do, but from what they are, their unchanging essence. The question oas to whether we have an essence is critical for today. For the question of transcendent value of human beings changes how the basic principle of ethics as being for human flourishing is to be applied. The point of this essay is to show the horrible consequences of denying the transcendent value of human beings.
If humans have transcendent value, it follows by definition that they cannot be used as sacrificial chess pieces so to speak in the pursuit of the happiness of humanity in the abstract. If humans have transcendent value, then absolutely no individual can be treated unethically for the greater good. The value of the individual is inviolable. As a result it is, for example, under this metaphysics, it is absolutely wrong to torture people, as a person's worth is not taken away by past actions, no matter how evil. In a similar way, if humans have transcendent value, then it is wrong to to abort the unborn. If human value is not dependent on level of development, then it follows that under such an understanding of the human person, abortion is morally wrong, no matter the excuse. My position on this issue is more compassionate and nuanced than this paragraph may suggest. But it is beyond the scope of this essay to discuss the ethics of abortion at length. I simply am writing to demonstrate the effects of transcendent value of human beings has on the pursuit of human happiness. I digress. A third concrete example: if human value is sacred, unconditionally so, then it follows that it is always gravely immoral to exploit people, as formal slaves, or simply workers in sweatshops, no matter how many people are made incredibly happy by the wealth such exploitation may produce. My point is, such a view of the human person ensures the application of the principle of seeking human flourishing applies to all individual humans. Indeed, it seems to follow that if love is unconditional, such a view of the human person is the only real way to truly apply radical agape love. As I will show, when the transcendent value of humans is denied, this leaves the basic principle of love gravely damaged.
If a person's value is not transcendent, and so, is conditional, it follows that a persons value depends on things that can change. And, as a result, a person's value is never constant. Instead, under such an understanding of the human person, there can come many times when a person can be seen as no longer valuable, and so, evil can be done to the individual. I notice that a way we tend to classify people is by their instrumental worth - how much they are able to do, in other words. This can especially be seen in how we use words like deadbeat as a sneering spit on those who are very low on the social ladder. There is merit in evaluating people in terms of ability and work ethic. But, when ones moral worth depends on instrumental value, there are terrible consequences. It means, with no transcendent human value, human moral worth can justifiably be organised in a hierarchy. Those lower on the chain can be used as currency to buy the happiness of the rest of humanity, those with greater instrumental worth. Slave classes seem perfectly justifiable under such an understanding of the human person. Some have tried to classify people's moral worth based on level of sentience. This is another form of the denial of transcendent worth. And the consequence of this is that nobody is truly safe from being declared a non person, able to be used merely as an instrument for the happiness of others, rather than looked at as a loved member of the human family. Those with major mental disabilities, under such an understanding of humanity, are non persons, and so can justifiably be treated as such. Let me make it very clear that I am not defending this. Instead, I am writing to demonstrate what denial of transcendent human worth can do to the human search for happiness. When individual worth becomes dependent on changing things, then the pursuit of human happiness can simply be a question of the greatest happiness for the greatest number - at least some can be used as chess pieces to be sacrificed in the battle for happiness. Love becomes less about love of individual humans, but love of humanity in the abstract.
In writing, I hopefully have been able to show the consequences of denial of transcendent human worth has for ethics. Indeed the same goal of human flourishing takes two radical different courses depending on how one sees human beings. For true love to exist, we must see eachother as people to be loved for our own sake, rather than as things to be used, or beings whose worth can vanish in a moment of misfortune. An aspect of ethics is having the moral eyes to see moral principles. I know most of you my readers will be able to see clearly the truth of at least the principle of treating people as having transcendent worth. It is sad though that there are thinkers out there who close their hearts, and seek proof of the mind alone to confirm human transcendent worth, when ethics to some extent is a synthesis of heart and mind. But, I have faith that there is a way of proving this worth so critical for a world of real love. This will be another piece of writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment