Human Dignity and the Law

Following are some snippets from a talk given by Robert George entitled “Natural Law, God, and Human Dignity” (video).  Robert George is a professor at Princeton University.  The entire video is about one hour, but I include below some sections relevant to our discussions here.  For each section, I have included the timestamp link.  The first one begins at about 25 minutes into the talk, and the others follow almost directly.

I just offer some notes for each section; no transcripts or further comments.  Certainly, the video is worthwhile; for sure the last 35 minutes.

Natural law, radical individualism, and collectivism

Natural Law theorists propose to understand sound principles of justice, including those principles we call human rights. 

Natural law theorists reject both strict individualism and collectivism. 

Radical individualism overlooks the intrinsic value of human sociability, and tends to view human beings atomistically and materialistically.  I enter into relationships solely because I see some gain in it for me, and not for anything to do with the other persons’ intrinsic worth.

Collectivism, on the other hand, instrumentalizes and subordinates human beings and their well-being to the interests of larger social units.

Both have theories of human rights, but both are defective.  Neither does justice to the concept of a human person – instead, either as a means to someone else’s ends, or as a being with no consideration for sociability. 

We must treat ourselves and others as ends, not as means.

The human rights of abortion

A “human rights” discussion on abortion.  This includes a comment on those who accept a utilitarian calculation for when it is right to kill an innocent person – say one or a few – in order to save many others.

To be made in the image of God

What does it mean that man is made in the image of God?

Can we not reason about ends?

Discusses David Hume’s reason as slave to the passions: we can never reason about ends – these are driven by passion; we can only reason about the means.  A comparative example between Mother Theresa and Hitler is offered – can we not reason about which of these two individuals held better “ends”?

Natural law as a basis for a common ethic

Can natural law provide some measure of common ground for a common ethic, even for those who are atheist?

The Church as Sub-Department

From a brief, 30-minute discussion between Tom Holland and Freddie Sayers.  The entire video is here; further links below are time-stamped.

Speaking of the role of the church during these last nine months (in this case, the Church of England, but generally applicable to many churches), Holland offers:

I think the risk for the churches, and particularly the Church of England, because it’s the established church, is that with so many of its traditional responsibilities and roles taken over by various aspects of the state, the risk for the churches is that they come to seem like a kind of eccentric and not very important sub-department of the welfare state.  And I agree, I think that the role played by archbishops and bishops in particular, the messages that they were giving, were basically public health messages.

Holland continues: if churches are to play a distinctive role, that’s inadequate.  There are far more qualified people for this: doctors, epidemiologists, and the like.  These church leaders should be talking about purpose, meaning; that there is something more than the physical. 

Many churches are like this on so many levels: public-service announcements on behalf of the state, cheerleaders for militarism, cheap imitations of rock concerts and high school parties.  Are any of these actually meaningful to those who appreciate the real thing?

Which brings Sayers to respond, bringing into focus the meaning crisis and the role that the church has played in facilitating it.  He starts by offering that what we find is that the one universally agreed-upon moral value we have a s a society is tied in the question life or death (Ed. well, except for the death of the unborn, or the “other” in some foreign country we are bombing):

And all of our public decisions have been structured around that.  And it’s a pretty good one, I think most people would sign up to that: I would rather people survived than didn’t.  It just really laid bare to me how there aren’t very many other virtues that are publicly sayable, or that people widely agree on anymore.

Well, we have equality, racism, diversity, etc.  Whatever these mean and however they can be lived out.  In other words, meaningless terms such as these cannot offer meaning.

What is the value of what kind of life we are living?  What is the value of beauty, togetherness, relationships?  If someone who is in their 80s lives for nine months, but is able to be with their family and have a beautiful spiritual life verses living for twelve months, being stuck on their own in an elderly care home without being able to see anyone?  How should we judge those two scenarios?

He continues that this is probably something that Christians should address. 

How many people reading this know someone who spent Christmas alone, scared to death by the 24/7 news coverage of the unimportant trivia of positive tests?  Who have missed out on church for the last nine months, or any other regular activity that involved personal relationship – activities that they had done religiously for seventy, eighty, or even ninety years?

Have you talked to them lately?  Do they sound happy and upbeat about living such a life when closer to the end than at the beginning?  Happy to have one more day of nothingness in exchange for losing one day of a robust life?  Is this the point of living, merely to exist?

Conclusion

Christian churches have, for the most part, let us down.  This is most profound in the more institutional churches – at least from what I have seen: The Catholic, the Orthodox.  The Protestants are good for their name: some subset, at least, are protesting.

Betrayal From Within

These comments are taken from Jonathan Pageau’s December Q&A.  The full video is here; the links below are time-stamped.

Question: What are the examples and your own thoughts on the possibility of physical violent counter-resistance response to the cancellation of the center or hierarchy itself?  Does Christianity offer an argument for a violent response or is it a case of too much mental gymnastics to constitute a courageous physical defense?

I find myself amongst Christians who assume that there is no need for a physical reaction to evil, even if it is in their communities.  They seem to take Jesus’s story and become absolute pacifists.

Pageau: I think it is possible for Christians to – in service of a higher purpose – to defend their home or their territory.  So I believe in the Christian knight who fights for a higher king, someone who is above them, fights in the name of something above him, and then in service to those who are below who can’t defend themselves.

So far, so good.

What’s happening now is different.  And what’s happening now looks way more like the story of the betrayal of Christ by Judas.  From within the West – from within the Christian story – rose up a traitor who was an antichrist who then dislodged, deconstructed, and brought about the dying of the church.

This is a very interesting take, and there is no chance I would ever have thought of the comparison. 

I don’t think in that case we should defend ourselves violently, in the same way that Christ didn’t.  There is a mystery in dying – I don’t know what to tell you – there is a mystery in dying, there is a mystery in the martyr, and there is a mystery in what’s happening right now.

And the mystery in the martyr is the same mystery that we are seeing happen.  So, as we watch Christianity wane, and as we watch it die, we have the responsibility to be seeds for the resurrection, rather than fight off…what are you going to fight off?

It’s all coming from the inside.  Its like this rot that is kind of manifesting itself from within our country, from within our churches, from within our own traditions.  And so, it’s not the same. 

Who would we fight?  Leadership of almost every institution is failing us – most importantly, as I have noted often, church leadership.

Through that, there are also attacks from the outside – which are happening, I have to admit that.  But it’s mostly this kind of strange betrayal from the inside.  So that’s how I see it.  But I also have sympathy for someone who might disagree with me; I have sympathy for that as well.

Later, from Pageau:

I want to wish you all a Happy New Year.  I know that’s strange to say with 2021 coming.

The world is changing, I think most people can feel it.  Religion is coming back; the world is going to be enchanted whether we want it or not and that’s for all the good and all the bad, the light and the dark.  We are going to see things in the next few years which are going to be unthinkable even now. 

You might think, “that’s an easy prediction, given the last ten months.”  But I recall that before 2020, Pageau knew that the year was going to be one like no other for us.

Things are going to get loopy and crazy and we are going to see things that we haven’t seen in thousands of years are going to start to manifest themselves.

I don’t know about the “thousands of years” part.  Going back to the French Revolution is frightful enough.

Hopefully we will have enough people with enough sense to start to bring things to light. …So, get ready, because none of this is over; it’s just starting. 

Conclusion

From Pageau:

Christ is born, so glorify Him.