I cannot tell you how many times Catholics have used “the common good” as an excuse for more government involvement in peoples’ lives and the installing of socialistic, “spread the wealth” programs. This version of the common good is the foundation for some people’s idea of distributive justice, but actually it is based on the “Robin Hood fallacy” of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

How did I come to this conclusion? I did so merely by reading Aristotle and St. Thomas. Both of those great thinkers say that government must rule for the common good, but both of them oppose “common good” to the “particular” or “private” good. This means, as Aristotle writes, that any law must be good for not a ruler alone, or his cronies, or even the majority, but for the state as a whole. To use the analogy Plato makes in the Statesman, a physician gives a medicine to a sick person even if the sick person finds it distasteful. When he leaves the scene, he leaves behind a prescription containing his instructions. The instructions are not for his good, or the family’s benefit, but for the health of the sick person. BUT . . . nowhere in Aristotle or St. Thomas does it say that the common good is the exclusive or even main province of the government. They merely give a negative prohibition that the state cannot make laws which are good for only one segment of society.

The Church, as opposed to some Catholic writers, recognizes this. The Church holds to the principle of subsidiarity, originally enunciated by Leo XIII and actually named as such by Pius XI. Firstly, this principle states that nothing should be done by a higher level of society that can be done by a lower level. This means that, say, in my profession, the professor in the classroom is presumed to be doing his job unless some serious problem arises. His department chairman is not to be breathing down his neck and nitpicking his work. Certainly, the chairman’s boss, the dean, has no business butting into the professor’s work. If a problem arises, and the dean hears about it, he should ask the chairman to investigate it and take care of it, assuming the chairman has not done so already, which is an unlikely assumption. Secondly, the principle of subsidiarity says that nothing should be done by a government agency that can be done by a private agency. This means that government is a last resort, when all private possibilities are exhausted and the problem is a serious violation of justice or something that only a government can resolve, like an invasion.

Take a look at how Vatican II defines the common good: “The common good of society consists in the sum total of those conditions of social life which enable men to achieve a fuller measure of perfection with greater ease. It consists especially in safeguarding the rights and duties of the human person.” The fact that the Church does not have a list of specific positive programs here is that it is clearly stressing the notion that the common good is a “habitat” in which the human person can flourish. The onus is on the person to do the flourishing, with the assistance of the spontaneous institutions arising in a free society which are there for that purpose. On the other side of the coin, the onus is also on the individual to make sure that his fellows have that environment to flourish, with the government as a last resort remedy for that which individuals and social groups cannot do to provide that habitat.

Therefore, we can conclude with Bertrand de Jouvenel that a healthy society has many social organizations, and that the role of these groups should not be usurped by government. If government participates in this usurpation, it is rejecting the human person’s duty and ability to help himself and his brothers and sisters. Remember what we wrote about John Paul II and personal responsibility? (Maybe you should review it). Personal responsibility is founded on self-governance and self-governance leads to self-determination. Surely, self-governance of a social being like man leads him to take responsibility for the success of ourselves and of our fellows who cannot succeed by themselves, but it should never substitute for the action of the persons themselves. Neither should government. Nor should the citizens demand that government take over the responsibility for themselves or their fellows, except when they CANNOT succeed in doing so. Not only does this have dire consequences, which are not part of this essay, but—and this is the most important reason—it violates the person’s dignity.

Read more from Dr. Luckey at “Catholic Truths on Economics.”

In this, the third video in Acton Media’s series of shorts accompanying its latest documentary The Birth of Freedom, Glenn Sunshine demonstrates how belief in human dignity spurred invention and innovation during the middle ages.

Acton Media’s video shorts from The Birth of Freedom are designed to provide additional insight into key issues and ideas in the film. A new short is released each Monday. Check out the rest of the series, learn about premieres in your area, and discover more background information at www.thebirthoffreedom.com.

In stating his opposition to a proposed ban on the creation of human-animal hybrids, or chimeras (the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2007), Wired blogger Brandon Keim writes, “People -- and, for that matter, animals -- can’t be reduced to a few discrete biological parts. An embryo is not a person. Strands of DNA do not contain our souls.”

I’m not sure that human eggs and sperm aren’t comprised of souls in some sense, or at least aren’t made up of soulish bits (I tend to lean toward viewing a traducian account of the origin of the human soul as plausible. A traducian view may also explain more than a purely materialist account with regard to the transmission of non-material realities, such as culture).

But the crux of Keim’s argument is that because embryos aren’t “persons,” they can be treated in a instrumentalist/utilitarian fashion. This is one of the reasons that debates about embryonic stem cells, chimeras, and other bioethical matters so often break down into the traditional pro-life/pro-choice lines concerning abortion. There is a disagreement over the first principle of when life begins, when personhood begins, and so on.

Jacques Ellul identified what he called the plague of a technocratic society—doing something because it can be done, not because it should be done (HT).

In a series attempting to explicate a biblical-theological approach to chimeras, I argue that because animals do not have a purely instrumental value, we cannot simply make utilitarian judgments about how and when to use them for experimentation. And this is to say nothing of the objectively higher value that is placed on human life in the biblical account.

I’m increasingly sure that the answer to “what it means to be human” needs to be put in such a way as to emphasize ultimate capacities “for thought, feeling, consciousness and active volitional power,” and therefore to positively value the teleology of a thing, not simply the current form of its development or existence. See for example, Moreland and Rae, Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics, p. 25 et passim. Embryos are persons if you define personhood in terms of ultimate capacities.

See also: “Hybrid Test Drive,” on the rather more advanced situation in the UK.

I saw a spate of headlines over the weekend that proclaimed something like, “Now scientists create a sheep that’s 15% human.”

15% human? Really? Isn’t that like being “a little pregnant”?

Followers of this blog may already know that I’ve written a fair bit, most of it disapproving (at least with respect to the newest genetic innovations), on the creation of chimeras. One of the concerns raised about this latest effort is the potentially devastating effects of so-called “silent” viruses, which are harmless to animals but could migrate with the harvested parts.

According to reports, Dr Patrick Dixon, an international lecturer on biological trends, warned: “Many silent viruses could create a biological nightmare in humans. Mutant animal viruses are a real threat, as we have seen with HIV.”

I’m inclined to think that this kind of work respects neither the animal nor the human person. And the latter is in part illustrated by the fact that if you just went off of what the headlines said, you’d think it’s possible for something to be partially human. It’s really a confusion about what it means to be human. You either are or you aren’t.

The “10 years after welfare reform” articles of this past summer are old news, of course. Not surprisingly, indications were that, like any public policy, reform hadn’t been the all-time poverty solution, but that policies had, in fact, helped a significant number of people to move themselves to self-sufficiency. A recent Wall Street Journal series highlighted the broad range of issues related to moving out of poverty. A companion piece to the December 28 entry, “Economists Are Putting Theories to Scientific Test” notes that MIT has set up a center called the Abdul Latif Jameeel Poverty Action Lab focused exclusively on using experiments to study poverty.

Revisiting public policy and referenceing research can be insightful, especially as we attempt to make responsible end-of-the-year financial contribution decisions. What did pundits and experts alike argue is effective compassion, and how far on or off the mark are they in comparison to our own giving standards?

There is an abundance of good how-to-give-responsibly material from varied sources. With the Buffet donation and the Clinton philanthropy meeting in Little Rock, even recent international stories, Big Donors are making their legacy marks. Few of us have such resources, however. Does that mean that very limited, perhaps virtually unnoticed giving is any less valuable?

Less self-focus and more other-focus is a good thing, approached differently but consistently across the world’s faith doctrines. A New Testament Gospel parable underscores the relative value of giving.....not relative to world impact but relative to the personal sacrifice required of the giver.

The story of the Widow’s Mite is worth revisiting. Interestingly, Wikipedia reports: “This tale is held by most modern Christians to mean that a gift should to be judged not by its absolute value, but by how it compares relatively; that it is not the impressiveness or purchasing power which matters, but what it means.” There is theological debate about the ‘true meaning’ of the parable. I’ll leave such to the theologians and consider a ‘face value’ interpretation. There is a quality about sacrificial giving that facilitates my being a better person. To give sacrificially rather than from abundance means that I probably considered my own needs (wants, most likely), weighed them against neighbors’ need, and determined to put the others before myself.

It appears that ready sacrifice isn’t so especially American these days. Unlike the American culture that marveled Tocqueville, twenty first century America is ruefully referred to as the “me” culture--me first, me now, more for me, is there any other consideration except me? Brokaw referred to Americans of World War II era as “the greatest generation.” Sacrifice was a way of life--literally of life, of resources, of simple sacrifices such as sugar and gasoline. But just as our growing abundance has empowered Big Donors to make a Big Impact, has personal sacrifice for others been eclipsed? Arthur Brooks certifies that Americans remain the most generous, and more interestingly, those with less give more

But I’m not just musing over personal sacrifice in the amount given. Am I deferring to personal comfort and ease, i.e., online giving, vs. my having to make a more concerted effort to determine both program and financial effectiveness of a charity helping needy neighbors?

I questioned a Generation Y colleague, who of course is technically astute. Was I reflecting my age, working from an assumption that personal connection was of higher value, that deferring to click (Internet) donation was a contender to Subsidiarity? He offered some insights about the ease of accessing global information about need, that my “needy neighbors” now could reasonably include global neighbors vs. only those in my own community. And I’m not pushing facilitators of online giving in to a questionable position. Many of the charities that we know well now have the capacity to accept online donations.

So this is the recommended benchmark: Give sacrificially. Make the personal effort to discern your need from want and then compare to your neighbor’s need......next door or across the globe. If possible, use the Internet to investigate how well your charity of choice invests resources that you give them. Investigate just how much an Internet “giving intermediary” takes for processing. Don’t ever discount the needs of your own community, those perhaps with no Website, not in high profile charity registries, but helpful to your neighbors with food and health needs, challenged teens, people who simply need a friend.

Those personal expenditures are the epitome of personal sacrifice......and worthy of being categorized with the widow who gave her mite.

Yesterday I looked at the worth of human life, especially as relative to that of animal life.

Today I want to refine the discussion about the value of human life, by making a fine terminological distinction. It’s become commonplace for theologians to speak of the “infinite value” of human life. Here are some examples from representatives of major traditions within Christianity. Rod Benson, director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at the Baptist-affiliated Morling College in Australia, contends that “every person is of infinite intrinsic value.”

Pope John Paul II often spoke in this way. In a letter about biomedical experimentation, the pope wrote of “the absolute respect due to human life and to the infinite value of the human person, that is not tied to one’s external features or on the ability to relate to other members of society.”

“The human person, created in the image of God and called to progress toward the divine likeness, is unique and of infinite value,” says Fr. John Breck, professor of biblical interpretation and ethics at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. I, too, have spoken in this way in the past, referring to “the infinite value of the human person created in God’s image.”

My criticism of all these uses, including mine, does not rise to the level of a substantive critique. Within the context of these statements, the meaning and intention of the use of the term infinite is clear and uncontroversial. My purpose here is to simply note the ambiguity in the term infinite and to suggest clarification and possible substitution of other terms that have overlapping meanings without the possible misconstrual.

There are at least two basic definitions for the word infinite: “Having no boundaries or limits” and “Immeasurably great or large.” There is some connection between the two meanings, clearly, but they are not identical. The former refers to the ontological status of the thing that is infinite, while the latter primarily refers to the ability to measure or gauge the thing said to be infinite. A thing can be practically immeasurable or unquantifiable without being limitless or boundless. I understand all of the above theological uses of the term infinite to be used in this latter sense.

But there is a theological use of the term with respect to human worth that does use the former sense, and this is with respect to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As Anselm asks regarding Christ’s death the Cur Deus Homo of his dialogue partner Boso:

Anselm: And do you not think that so great a good in itself so lovely, can avail to pay what is due for the sins of the whole world?

Boso: Yes! it has even infinite value.

Later Boso says to Anselm, “Moreover, you have clearly shown the life of this man to have been so excellent and so glorious as to make ample satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, and even infinitely more.”

Only Christ’s life and death, as the God-man, is infinite in the sense of being boundless and limitless. All created being is by definition finite, and therefore not infinite in the first sense. Human life is infinite in the sense of not being able to be quantified in the latter sense.

For this reason, I think it is more proper to speak of human life as of immeasurable, inestimable, or inscrutable worth and value, rather than simply as of infinite value. Where the term infinite is used in a synonymous sense with these otehr terms, it may be acceptable. But it is more desirable to avoid possible confusion with the infinite value of Christ and use other, less ambiguous terms, instead of or as clarifiers for the word infinite.

“Animals are less valuable than human beings,” says John Martin, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at University College London (UCL). This seemingly uncontroversial statement is under fire, as Helene Guldberg at sp!ked writes, “There seems to be an emerging consensus within the scientific community that we should reject the philosophical outlook that says humans are ‘categorically superior’ to animals.”

Keith Burgess-Jackson, who blogs at The Conservative Philosopher, says he is “an egalitarian about interspecific value,” and passes along the following quote:

For many philosophers, the consideration that may loom largest here is the stubborn conviction that the lives of normal humans must be of greater value than the lives of many, if not all, nonhuman animals. Perhaps that conviction is unjustified; it has not yet been very satisfyingly defended. (David DeGrazia, Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996], 248)

Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer is famous for equating the moral value of animals with newborn human beings, although he claims that “the aim of my argument is to elevate the status of animals rather than to lower the status of any humans” (Practical Ethics, p. 77).

In defending the position that humans are to be valued more than animals, Martin asks the right question: “What is a human being?” He argues that the answer “requires both a biological and a philosophical analysis - in tandem,” and that “what sets us apart from all other animals… is our ability to generate creative, abstract thought – ‘and with that, poetry, music and the social networks that bind us together’.” In this, Martin is partly right. But the answer to his question needs a theological as well as biological and philosophical analysis.

Continue reading "'Worth More than Many Sparrows'"

Last Wednesday, I was privileged to attend the Samaritan Awards Gala in Washington, D.C. I have to say up front that Acton’s Effective Compassion events are probably the most enjoyable for me to attend because invariably one comes into contact with a group of very special, very dedicated people who are completely devoted to what our society would term “lost causes,” and having great success.

While there were a number of award-winning programs at the Gala this year, I’d like to take some time to focus on the 2005 Samaritan Award Grand Prize Winners, Ken and Sheila Ortman of Lives Under Construction Boys Ranch in Lampe, Missouri. Ken and Sheila were joined in D.C. by their daughter Melissa, who serves as the Development Director for the Ranch, and 7 young men who are currently residents in their program.

Ken, Sheila and Melissa are wonderful people - remarkably kind, decent, and humble - who are doing amazing work with young men who come out of shockingly difficult circumstances. They are hard workers - Ken remarked during a conversation that he couldn’t imagine working at a job like mine, which involves a lot of sitting at a desk - who moved from their South Dakota farm to southwestern Missouri in order to start a new life working with troubled boys. And they are successful - the LUC program has a 92 percent success rate over the last 20 years, turning many young men away from lives of crime and substance abuse and toward a productive life in society. They do so by establishing a structured environment within which the boys can learn respect for God, authority figures, and gain a proper view of themselves as persons.

We had the chance to meet 7 of the young men who live at the ranch, and the transformation in their lives is evident and remarkable. By all outward appearances, these boys were just like any other group of young people touring Washington, D.C. You’d never know that each of them had likely had severe drug or behavioral problems and numerous encounters with the law. They were a group of normal, if somewhat rambunctious teens.

It is truly a blessing to meet people like the Ortmans, and it was great as well to watch the boys - many of whom were on their first trip to a large city. As I noted earlier, I always enjoy Acton’s Effective Compassion events, but having these young men along added a spirit and sense of adventure to this trip that will make it unforgettable for me.

If you haven’t done so in the past, I encourage you to check out the many fine charities like LUC Boys Ranch that are in our online Samaritan Guide, which is an excellent resource for anyone looking for effective private charities across the United States. Many of the programs in the guide are very small, but doing amazing work, and are well worth your attention and support.

I had an opportunity to talk with a few of the boys and with Ken, Sheila and Melissa. To hear my conversation with the Ortmans, click here (4 mb mp3 file). To hear from the boys, click here (1.9 mb mp3 file).

Winners of the 2005 Acton Essay Competition have been announced. The topic for the 15th annual competition:

The human person, by virtue of being created imago Dei, is an independent being, individually unique, rational, the subject of moral agency, a co-creator, and inherently social. Accordingly, human persons possess intrinsic value and dignity, implying certain rights and duties with respect to the recognition and protection of the dignity of themselves and other persons. These truths about the human person’s dignity are known through divine revelation, but are also discernible through reason.

Kony Kim, Master of Arts student in Theological Studies at Westminster Seminary California, took first place with the essay titled, “Imago Dei: The Transcendent Basis of True Liberty and Just Authority.” Read Kim’s essay and all of the other finalists at the competition homepage.

One of the articles provided to be used in the formation of these essays was a chapter from Alberto Piedra’s Natural Law: The Foundation of an Orderly Economic System (Lexington, 2004). Piedra’s book was recently reviewed by Matthew Lee at Mere Orthodoxy, who writes, “Piedra is well-read and the book is well-researched and thorough. I would highly recommend it to any interested reader, and suggest that readers interested in having a robust Christian worldview carefully consider his arguments.”