Purpose and the Meaning of Good

From at least the time of Aristotle, the Good was identified with purpose. Aristotle’s Nicomachaen Ethics opens with the assertion: “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has been declared to be that at which all things aim.” The highest good is the end, telos, which is desired for its own sake. The task of ethics consists in understanding what this good is and how to attain it.

Aristotle’s notion of the Good as the final end or purpose came into Medieval Christian thought primarily through the work of St. Thomas Aquinas and his theory of natural law. St. Thomas defined natural law as an aspect of eternal law, the order by which all things are directed to their end. Like Aristotle, St. Thomas thought of God as pure being, pure actuality, whereas creation consisted of a process of things becoming by actualizing their potential. Using a popular example, an acorn has the potential to become a mature oak tree. Inanimate things, plants, and non-rational animals achieve their actuality naturally. We humans, as rational beings, participate in the eternal law and must seek our end voluntarily using reason and free will.

            Reason and free will, in this view constitute the human faculties that enable us to know and love that which is good. Goodness and being are co-extensive, meaning that all being is good. Evil is a lack of something that ought to be. To take an example of a physical evil, if a person loses his eyesight, we call that a physical evil, (more often we would say “misfortune,”) because we cherish sight as a good thing that ordinarily accompanies our human nature. Moral evil consists of a lack of virtue. As we humans grow from infancy to adulthood, we ought to learn to control our lives by reason. The habits of rational governance constitute virtues such as temperance, courage, and justice. Anyone who fails to develop these qualities slips into intemperance, cowardice, and injustice. Since being is good, a good human being is one who is constantly becoming more human, which means a more highly developed rational animal. As we develop in this way we actualize our potential and move toward achieving our end, our telos.   

Contemporary Evolutionary Materialism

Contemporary materialism provides a view that rejects all of the concepts that constitute traditional natural law theory. Materialists deny the reality of the soul, eternal law, teleology, and objective good.  Francis Crick states the materialist position in explicit contrast to the notion of a soul, which his wife had learned in Catholic school:

The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.

If this thesis holds true, then we must understand conscious behavior of human organism as nothing but a product of physical and chemical events at the level of molecules.

For contemporary materialist thought, the term: “soul” does not refer to anything real. The activities that traditional philosophy attributed to the soul are now seen as nothing but “the behavior of nerve cells and other molecules.” So it is not you and I who experience joy and sorrow, remember things past, and strive for things future - the molecules are doing all of this.

Reason itself does not have the privileged place that it had in traditional thought, but we can choose to make it a supreme value. The materialist philosophers and scientists, to their credit, or to the credit of their molecules, give reason a place of pre-eminence. Materialist philosopher Daniel Dennett says in praise of scientific researchers and in response to those who argue that “trading mystery for mechanism” will impoverish our view of human potential:

Look around at those who are participating in this quest for further scientific knowledge and eagerly digesting the new discoveries; they are manifestly not short on optimism, moral conviction, engagement in life, commitment to society.

Fortunately we can value such things as life, health, and virtue. But nature is indifferent, neither good nor bad apart from our judgments. For materialism, there can be no eternal law, and inanimate objects do not seek ends.  The question for us is whether we can show that the principle of seeking ends still applies to us humans as understood in contemporary science.

            To answer this question we must first look at what the materialists put in the place of the teleology of eternal law, namely, an interpretation of natural selection based on chance. In the materialist view, everything from the formation of molecules to the most complex human thought comes about by natural selection. Some molecules replicate themselves and therefore copies of them will survive. Of the replicating molecules, the ones that are best suited to the environment in which they find themselves and which are not self-destructive, will pass along copies of themselves. This process continues as some of the molecules happen to join with others to form more complex structures. The fittest of these survive and eventually evolve into living organisms, which by the same process of natural selection develop sensation, consciousness, and intelligence. In the materialist view there is no need to posit a design or goal at any point in the process. At the lower levels there is no striving or wanting to survive. At the level of consciousness, the desire to survive might give an organism a competitive edge, allowing those organisms who happen to have a survival instinct to survive and reproduce. At the level of intelligence, planning and deliberately working toward long range goals may greatly enhance survival.

            Daniel Dennett offers an explanation of free will based on non-biological survival structures called memes. (The term “meme” has taken on a more restricted meaning in social media.) Dennett describes Memes as “cultural replicators” parallel to genes, which are the biological replicators. Examples of memes would be anything that is part of what we call our culture, from the way we prepare food to the way we enjoy music. The memes are products of natural selection so that, for instance, an innovation in food or music may or may not be replicated depending on whether or not it is to the liking of the biological host.

            Just as our genes have a natural tendency to replicate themselves, so do our cultural memes. Dennett quotes Richard Dawkins author of "The Selfish Gene” and coiner of the term "meme." Dawkins writes”

We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and if necessary the

selfish memes of our indoctrination…We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines but we have the power to turn against our creators. We alone on earth can rebel against the power of the selfish replicators.

Who are “we?” We are sharers of information. With the sharing of memes we have the beginning of a community rather than just an aggregate of individuals. The question is how we rebel against the replicators as Dawkins affirms that we in fact do. Dawkins does not say how, and so Dennett himself attempts to answer this question. The answer is that the memes open up a world of imagination, which provides a variety of options to choose from. Because of imagination we are not limited to only the option that best enhances our own individual survival, nor the survival of our genes. One person may forgo a family and children to live a life of service; another may do so to live a life of hedonistic delights. In both cases the genes’ metaphorical “desire” for perpetuation will not be met.   

There does not seem to be any reason in the nature of thing to affirm that any choices are better than any others. And although scientific thinkers like Dennett and Dawkins stand poles apart from the classical existentialists who hold that reality is absurd, the ultimate outlook on what is good or bad is strangely similar. As Jean-Paul Sartre states after arguing that values have no reality apart from the choice of a free being that choose them:

It follows that my freedom is the unique foundation of values and that nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies me in adopting this or that particular value, this or that particular scale of values.

And yet, it seems that those who pursue scientific knowledge, as well as other pursuits such as health care or social justice, do so with the assumption that they are on to something real. We need to ask whether our contemporary scientific world-view is compatible with the notion that science is really good and not just one of the myriad of memes, along with such things as astrology and sorcery, that people happen to adopt. 

Purposefulness in a Materialistic Age

 Purposefulness in a Materialist Age

Materialism and Teleology

We can look at the things around us and the events in our own lives in several ways, but two of them stand out. We can look back at the causes, or look ahead to the purpose. For example we may compare a tree that a storm knocks over to a baseball that a centerfielder throws to home-plate. In the first case, air moves from an area of higher pressure to one of lower pressure in ways that meteorologists can explain. A tree or house that happens to be in the path of the wind might be destroyed, but the destruction does not serve any known purpose. By contrast, the trajectory of the baseball results from the fielder’s intention to get the ball to home-plate before the base-runner. Explainable factors such as the skill and strength of the player, wind resistance, and gravity all play a role in the outcome of when and where the throw ends. But, unlike the storm, the throw occurs only because of the intention of the player. Some people believe everything happens for a purpose. “It was (or wasn’t) meant to be.” Others hold that apart from human intentions, such as throwing, the universe lacks any purposeful action. We might also believe that there is purpose in the universe but that not everything serves a purpose.

Examining the meaning and of purpose, we may ask the question, “Why are we here?” This question might refer to an immediate presence such as why are we here in this meeting, classroom, or social get-together; or it may address a more cosmic concern: “Why are we here on this planet? Why do we exist?”  Looking backwards in the case of the specific “here”, we may say that we are here because we were called in by our boss, it was on our class schedule, or we were invited. If we are extremely literal minded we may say that we are here because we drove or walked. Those answers look backwards at how we got here. But we may also look ahead to the purpose of our presence: to discuss how to improve our company’s safety record, to gain insight into an academic field, or to be introduced to a method of enhancing our income by selling home products. Our individual purpose might be different from that of the boss, professor, or host. But whether the purpose is that of the person who called us to be there, or our purpose for showing up, the purpose refers to looking ahead to what we expect from our action of attending.

In asking the larger question of why we are here in the sense of our very existence, we may again look backwards. Depending on our knowledge and interest we may begin with the “big bang” and trace the history of star and planet generations up to and including the evolution of life on earth. Or we may be more interested in demographics, genealogy, or how our parents met. All of these questions look backwards and involve research in physical or social science, or family history. But the question that emerges as most important to each of us asks, “Now that we are here, what should we do with our lives, what is our purpose for living?”  We might try to answer this question by believing that we are part of a larger purpose and that we need to find our individual role. Or we might believe that our purpose consists only in what we ourselves create in an otherwise purposeless universe.

 The belief that all events can be explained completely and solely by what has happened previously is called a materialist or mechanistic view. These terms reflect an older worldview that portrayed nature as composed of material particles moving according to the laws of mechanical science. But contemporary materialists think in terms of every kind of physical energy and even allow for some randomness. Purpose plays no role.

            The view that things happen for a purpose we call a teleological view. This word is based on the Greek word telos, which refers to an end or purpose. Of course, a person may believe that physical causes – pushing from behind, and teleological causes – pulling from ahead, may both be factors.  The belief that there is some purpose in nature, however little, marks a decisive contrast to the materialist world-view. The distinction between materialism and purpose goes back at least to the time of Plato. The following two posts will contrast the traditional teleological view with the prevailing contemporary materialist view.

Reverence for Business Relations

We usually do not associate business relationships with reverence, but if we could develop such an attitude we would greatly enhance these relationships. For business to be ethical, and for business to be efficient and effective, the participants must act with loyalty, not only to their own business or the business that they work for, but also to the whole business community. Relationships include manager to employee, manager to investors and creditors, producers to consumers, vendors to buyers, firms to local communities, firms to competitors, and professionals such as accountants and engineers to their professions. Tom Morris, author of If Aristotle Ran General Motors, offers a powerful definition of the ethical relationship between autonomous individuals performing their duty to build a healthy community: “Ethics is all about: spiritually healthy people in socially harmonious relationships” (Bold in the original). This expression merges perfectly with Josiah Royce’s notion of the good. Spirituality consists of inner depth, which enables persons to perceive fuller meaning in their lives and their work and to make ever larger connections with the people and world around them. Harmonious relationships foster the growth of each person and empower them to achieve their own highest potential while enhancing the common enterprise.

Therefore, in an ethical business environment, each person understands the work, the product, and the relationship of all who contribute to its production. They further see how the product contributes to the overall good of the society in which the business flourishes. This description of an ethical business environment may sound unrealistic and would be unrealistic if it presupposed perfect human beings in idyllic settings. But an analogy to physical health might provide some clarity

A few people are perfectly healthy in a physical sense, others are morbidly ill, and most of us lie somewhere between. But each of us, as well as our doctors and other health care professionals, should know what “healthy” means and how to strive toward it. Rather than thinking of health as all or nothing – we are perfect specimens or we are dying – we think of ourselves as more or less healthy and can adopt habits to become more so, or at least stave off becoming less so. The range of healthiness applies also to mental and spiritual health.

The notion of health and sickness applies to our business life, Those who desire to work ethically must be sure that the business in which they work is not hopelessly unethical because of a harmful product, a dishonorable way of doing business, or toxic relationships within the business. When ethical persons have chosen a business in which they believe they can work, they strive to the best of their ability to work loyally toward more harmonious relationships that contribute positively to all who are affected.

Reverence for Relations Involving Life and Death

Reverence for Relations Involving Birth and Death

          Two of the most controversial issues in contemporary society center on how our loyalty to life extends to those not yet born and those near death. Since we do not have a consensus as to whether the unborn are members of the human community, I concede that the question ought not to be answered by the state but rather by the woman who bears the pre-natal life. But moral awareness and reverence for relations ought to extend to all living humans including the unborn. This cannot be achieved by trying to make abortion illegal, but by creating conditions that favor choosing life. 
          Currently our political ideologies spew out a tangle of contradictory notions that lead to an appalling deficit of reverence for life and the relationships that sustain life. Liberals sometimes seem to have little or no concern for life before birth; conservatives who parade under the “pro-life” banner often care little for poor children once they are born. Many, who would ban abortion, simultaneously strive to block policies that would assure that all pregnant women have access to pre-natal, post-natal and pediatric care. Besides medical care, a child needs a decent place to live and an education that empowers him or her to be self-reliant, law-abiding and able to contribute to the community. To achieve all of this would not be impossible, but very expensive, and therefore highly improbable. We so far have not exercised the political will to pay the price for a truly pro-life society.

          Just as we need to improve our reverence for our relations with the unborn, we have a lot of room for improvement with those who are near death and dying. We may easily forget that we ourselves were once unborn, but only with a super effort of denial can we forget that most of us will someday be among the dying. We can be exempted from the class of dying people only if our death comes very suddenly. Besides ourselves, nearly all of us face the dying of those whom we love and feel deeply connected to. Our loyalty belongs not only to the web of human life, as in the case of the unborn, but also to whatever relations we had with the dying, especially family and friends. But what of those who die alone with no family and friends. They were once connected to us by a common geography, or by citizenship, or at least as fellow human beings. We and they did not tend these relationships very well. Yet, when we hear of a person dying alone, we ought to remember the words of poet John Donne, “Send not to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” If Donne has it right, we are all connected; what we lack is awareness.

For those dying persons to whom we have the duty that comes with conscious relationships we can connect to them ethically, neither denying their death by needlessly prolonging it, nor by hustling them along.  Reverence for relations requires us to act supportively toward the terminally ill as they pass through the stages of natural dying with as much love and comfort as possible. And while most of us have neither the resources nor the ability to be there for those who die alone, we can provide support for those who can help them.

Reverence for Individual Relations

          Royce argued that a relation between two individuals always requires a third entity to serve as mediator. Pairs can be dangerous in their competition and hostility toward each other. One person may come to dominate the other thus inhibiting that person’s growth, or the two may fall apart into enmity. Shakespeare’s Petronius warned “Neither a borrower or a lender be.” This is good advice because failure to repay a loan in a timely fashion can destroy friendship. However, a third person, a banker, can borrow from Peter and lend to Paul without any animosity between Peter and Paul. Acting as a third party is often the task of police officers, courts, insurance companies, and sports officials. In a personal friendship, there need not be a third individual between two friends, but a long lasting friendship requires loyalty to a third principle such as the friendship itself. People often build friendships around some third principle of loyalty such as a military unit, college days, sports and other activities, work experience, the old neighborhood, or their children’s school activities.

But even if we can pare friendship down to two persons who simply like each other, there is still a three-way dynamic. Each person acts as an interpreter to the other. One person might be the interpreter and the one interpreted. This may seem hopelessly abstract but a simple example can bring it to earth. A mentor sees some potential in a student, a potential of which the student is unaware. The mentor interprets the student to him or herself. Or the mentor shares a personal insight with the student. Now the mentor is interpreting himself to the student.  The same dynamic occurs in a friendship between equals. Aristotle described the best friendship as one in which the two persons see the good in each other. We can understand the essence of the relationship in constantly developing this awareness through mutual interpretation. Such a dynamic requires loyalty and reverence for the relationship and leads to an integration of the two individuals that enhances each of them.

          We can interpret an erotic relationship as a special kind of friendship that involves sexual desire for and appreciation of physical beauty in the loved one. Mere sexual desire can instigate behavior that is immoral and even criminal as in the cases of sexual assault or sex with a minor.  A relationship of two consenting adults based on sexual desire alone may consist of one using the other or both using each other. The mutuality in the second case would make the using more fair, but hardly commendable. More sinisterly, the relation may be one of dominance or a battle for dominance. Such relationships are not likely to have a good outcome, and occasionally lead to tragically violent endings. Also, when we hear of public figures engaging in the kind of sexual activity that involves only some combination of lust and the will to power, it does not inspire our admiration for them, and it is seldom a part of their life of which they admit to being proud.

          We can call an erotic relationship “good” in every sense of the word when the lovers share devotion, not only to each other, but to the relationship itself. The joy, thrill, and fun of “falling in love” cannot last forever, but the memory of it can. The erotic relationship can be one of the best glimpses we have of what human harmony can be. But the commitment of two persons to each other that outlives the youthful exuberance can best be described by Royce’s concept of loyalty, the thorough-going and practical devotion to a cause. In this case the cause is the commitment of the persons to each other. In many cases the benefits of the commitment are shared by others, especially children and grandchildren but also friends and family. Sadly, sometimes the most committed relationships break down. But such is the tragedy of human existence - that people need loyal relationships but find them to be extremely difficult to sustain.

Can Social Justice be Justified?

Can Social Justice Be Justified ?

            Glen Beck once told his listeners that if their church teaches social justice, they should leave that church. Beck walked his talk by leaving the Catholic Church          

            The mention of social justice, sometimes called economic justice, arouses controversy, not only in terms of what is right and wrong, but even in terms of what the concept means. Some deny that the concept has any meaning.  Another name for social justice, “distributive justice,” evokes the question of how the material goods of the world should be distributed. The views on this issue vary from those who argue that the current situation is radically unfair and that redistribution is a moral imperative, to those who argue that the whole notion of social justice is fraudulent and that no one has the right to distribute anything except his or her own property. A representative expression of the dismissal of social  justice by some conservatives is found in a column by economist Thomas Sowell: “What does ‘economic justice’ mean except that you want something that someone else produced, without having to produce anything yourself in return?”

            Is the present system just? When offered to a class of college students, or to a group of adults, my experience shows that this question can produce a lot of heat and unproductive opinions unless we can achieve some clarity on the meaning of justice. Some assume that justice means equality and point out that the current situation is patently unjust. Opponents of social justice agree that social justice means equality, and so they reject the notion of social justice as a theft against those who have earned wealth. Also, those who reject social justice often depict it as a disguise to increase the power of government.

            The whole notion of social justice requires clarification. Justice generally means the right distribution of benefits and burdens. Differences abound on the question of what constitutes “right distribution” As a step toward clarification we can express the notion of justice as follows: “Every person should get what he or she deserves. No one in a society should be arbitrarily deprived of its benefits nor arbitrarily made to carry its burdens.” The question remains as to what benefits and burdens, if any, belong to an individual simply by being a member of a society. Clearly, we do not all receive equal benefits or carry equal burdens. This fact of inequality does not necessarily constitute injustice, but it provides an opening into a better understanding. Taking factual inequality as a starting point, we ask whether any reasons justify the unequal distribution of benefits and burdens.

Capitalism and Justice

            Some defenders of capitalism argue that the inequalities brought about by a free market, are justified by the fact that those who receive more are precisely those who contribute more as judged by the market. A Capitalist view of justice, playing on the Marxian principle of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” states, "From each according to his willingness to participate in the system; to each according to his success in participating.” In capitalism, the principle is not simply “from each according to his or her ability,” but from each according to his or her ability and willingness to contribute. The willingness consists not only of a general willingness to work, but to do a particular kind of work, or develop a particular kind of skill, or a particular entrepreneurial idea. For example, one person might learn a construction trade such as brick-laying or carpentry and wish to work in construction; another may want to start a small business such a restaurant; a third might want to work in management for a corporation.  If these each achieve what they set out to do, they will receive a wage, profit, or salary, and the economy will benefit from their particular skill and work. Anyone may fail because of lack of ability or because their skills are not needed at a given time. In the example above, a business recession may lead to a loss of livelihood for all three. According to the capitalist or free-market theorist, such a loss is a misfortune but not an injustice.

            The terms “capitalist” and “libertarian” often overlap and sometimes are used interchangeably. Libertarians generally believe that individual freedom should be maximized and that government activity should be limited to the military and police work of preventing force and fraud. Of course, not all capitalists are libertarians, nor do they necessarily reject the notion of using public funds to help people in need. While the libertarians reject the notion of social justice, capitalists may defend the value of social justice but affirm that the free market is the most just distributor of wealth. They base their arguments on the fact that a person’s ability and willingness to work create wealth not only for that person, but for the whole society. The successful capitalists, while becoming rich, also provide jobs, products, and tax revenue. Without the activity of the capitalist, everyone would be less well-off, including those who are relatively poor.

A Reasonable Approach to Economic Justice

            Given the libertarian argument that no one has the right to distribute any property other than his or her own, and given the capitalist argument that the market can distribute goods more justly than any other human mechanism, is there a need for a separate category of social justice? In fact there are two moral principles that create a mandate for clear thinking on social justice. These principles are the notion that the goods of the earth belong to all, and the notion of moral equality, meaning that every human being has the right to be treated with respect. Merely stating these principles does not necessarily disprove the argument that a free market provides the best distribution, nor does it prove that any existing inequalities are unjust. But the principles do require us to examine what constitutes social justice and to work toward its implementation.

            One of the strongest arguments for social justice, if not for equality, stems from the notion that the goods of the earth belong to all. This argument did not arise in pre-modern times when the land was thought to belong to the king, or to a feudal strongman who was literally a land lord. This notion changed drastically with the Enlightenment when thinkers such as John Locke argued that things in their natural state belonged to all. But he laid down the basis for private property by arguing that things have value only when mixed with human labor. Since the work of our hands is ours individually, the product of that work is also ours as private property. This principle established both the basis for justice and the approval of inequality. Inequalities result from some persons working more effectively than others thus creating more value. But the inequalities have to be justified since the goods begin by belonging equally to all.

            A second Enlightenment idea that leads to a notion of social justice is the moral equality of all human beings. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the notion of equality referred to moral, political, and legal equality, but not to economic equality. But if we are by nature equal as human beings, some justification must be given if economic inequality is to be morally acceptable and not merely a result of  the more powerful grabbing more than they deserve. While few people today argue for a simple equality, we differ widely among ourselves as to how much inequality can be tolerated, and on what grounds. The libertarians argue that any inequality is justified as long as there is no force or fraud involved.

            I contend, to the contrary, that there is a place for public policy that can rightly be called social justice. Although problems that can be solved by individuals and communities should not be taken over by government, nevertheless there are some problems that can be dealt with only in the public sphere. We can discern injustice in the structures and laws of society, and therefore we can define what constitutes social justice. Some of the more obvious historical examples of social injustice include slavery and discrimination. But others examples include omissions, such as the failure on the part of the public sector to protect individuals from the results of environmental destruction, dangerous or exploitative working conditions, and inferior educational opportunities.

            Any person’s concept of justice is based on his or her concept of what a human being is and why we should be concerned with treating each person justly. The view of the human person presented in this blog  maintains that our capacity for membership in any genuine community rests on the fact that we are rational, free, capable and in need of meaningful work, communal, and needing the opportunity to realize our full physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual capacity. Therefore any structure or practice that inhibits a person from realizing his or her human nature is unjust, and that which promotes it is just. Justice as a moral task can mean doing whatever we can to assure that each person has an opportunity to realize his or her human potential. This entails much more than removal of obstacles such as discrimination.  Real equality of opportunity must include providing the conditions that make realization possible. If a person has the ability and desire to develop productive skills, but lacks the opportunity, does this constitute an injustice? The role of justice lies in determining what each person has the right to and who has the obligation to provide it.

Integrity and Integration in the Economy

            The key to understanding social justice consists in recognizing that we are mutually interdependent. Each of our lives has an impact on countless people of whom we are not aware, and the activities of other people impact each of us. No one in isolation and relying on only his or her own native ability can become an engineer, an accountant, a steamfitter, a golfer, or a musician. All of these things require physical and social structures and involve imitation and intense education, both formal and informal. While those who deny social justice may agree that we have an obligation as individuals to people whom we immediately affect, our universal mutual interdependence requires us to also pay attention to how we collectively impact other people through our political, economic, educational, and civil institutions.

            Any society that excludes some part of the population either by design or by neglect, to that extent suffers a deficiency of justice. Although giving a person a handout, by the state or by private charity, beats letting the person starve or freeze, such largess falls short of justice. The goal of achieving a just society requires that we, individually and collectively, do what we can to assure that each person can take a productive social and economic role.  To achieve this level of inclusiveness would be very difficult if not practically impossible. Nevertheless it is a standard against which we can measure our level of success and failure at building a just society.

            The theme of this blog is purposive integration or “teleological harmony.” We can rate our society as a just society to the extent that each and every individual has a place in the society that enables them to develop their full human potential. There will probably always be misfits, sociopaths, and criminals. The question of social justice requires that we ask whether we are giving each person a chance to be productive and prosperous, and how we treat those who reject or neglect the opportunities that are provided. Whether their problem is physical, psychological or moral, they still belong to the human community. We can move to seek ways to incorporate them although there is no guarantee of success.  Or we can reject or neglect them with the self-assurance that their problem is their fault not ours. As in every aspect of ethics, we can integrate or disintegrate

Common Ground on Pro-life and Pro-choice

Again, I sent a letter to the wheeling Sunday News-Register and again they did not publish it.

I am posting it here

Editor: Sunday News Register,                                     February 6, 2017

What could we learn from the two large demonstrations that took place within a week of the Inauguration? One was a March for Women that included a demand to keep abortion legal; the other was a March for Life that demanded protection of the unborn. Both groups consisted of Americans exercising their First Amendment rights for causes they passionately believe in.  Both groups gathered some very good people looking beyond their narrow self-interest. A problem arises because neither group easily concedes the goodness of the other.

For several years there have been voices describing common ground. But these voices are most often drowned out in the clamor of confrontational politics. But let’s look at some of the pro-life beliefs that most pro-choice advocates might agree with.

First, women should be able to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Although there is some disagreement on contraception, nearly everyone would agree that it is preferable to abortion. Second, every woman should have health insurance and availability of pre-natal, natal, and pediatric care. Third, our concern for pregnant women and their off-spring should extend to all women including undocumented immigrants and Syrian refugees.

            The pro-life movement often embraces conservative politicians who promise to end legal abortion. The irony is that a large portion of pro-life advocates are Catholics, and the Papal teachings on social justice are more liberal than almost any American politician. How can we reconcile these two positions? My suggestion is to recognize that trying to make abortion illegal is not the only way nor the most effective way to end abortion. But working together to create a society that is more welcoming to all pregnant women and prepared to help them give birth and raise children would lead to a healthier and less antagonistic society.  Abortions have been declining without the heavy hand of government bans. Building bridges instead of walls, literally and figuratively, could speed this process.