Moral responsibility with regard to human life,

 

27. Moral responsibility with regard to human life, one’s own and that of another: what kind of freedom? Physical life as a fundamental human value. Personal dignity and respect for physical life. Original meaning and historical understanding of the 5^th commandment. Application of traditional moral principles in the area of physical life: the lesser of two evils, action with double effect, and principle of totality.

 

Introduction: Only Human Beings Can Act Morally. Another reason for giving stronger preference to the interests of human beings is that only human beings can act morally. This is considered to be important because beings that can act morally are required to sacrifice their interests for the sake of others. A long-standing position in philosophy, law, and theology is that a person can be held morally responsible for an action only if they had the freedom to choose and to act otherwise. Thus, many philosophers consider freedom to be a necessary condition for moral responsibility.

 

The Moral Responsibility of a Person towards Human Life: God created man in the image and likeness of God. Body and soul as a whole were created in such a way. Respect for a person’s life, his bodily and mental integrality and health is belonged to the fundamental rights of the man. It is both for the person as self and others. Vatican-II in GS-27 states that the  reverence for man; everyone must consider his every neighbor without exception as another self, taking into account first of all His life and the means necessary to living it with dignity, so as not to imitate the rich man who had no concern for the poor man Lazarus. Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator. Human body is composed of body, mind and soul.  The Moral Responsibility of a person towards human life is many. Bodily life and health are goods entrusted to man by God. There is obligation to take care of one’s health. This obligation can be fulfilled by fulfilling the certain responsibilities. These are-nourishment by drinking and eating food. Clothing is for physical protection, recreation and to restore energy. The proper treatment is also required to save the life, the fundamental gift of God.These are essential both for the preserving the individual and communities life.

 

Human Dignity:  It is a fundamental criterion of the norms of morality. It is the intrinsic value of the human person, something the human person has simply by virtue of being a person. Because the human person has such intrinsic value, we are morally obligated to respect human nature. The principle of Catholic social teaching is the correct view of the human person. "Being in the image of God, the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons.

Scripture: In Old Testament we see in the beginning God created the human being “in his own image”. There is written in the Bible “God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen 1:27).  It is also found in the psalm “What is man that you should care for him? You have made him little less than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet" (Ps. 8:5-7).

In Jesus’ teaching, the individual is more valuable that the lilies of the fields and birds of the air (Mt. 6:26-34). Jesus considers each human being as having supreme value, worth and dignity. The value of human being exceeds that of the whole created universe. Jesus reveals that the fullness of life is found in the gift of eternal life. Christ Himself goes beyond the veil of physical and makes known to the man the eternal and spiritual dimension of human life as contains the supreme value.

Biologically: Human person has intellect and will. Human person is a rational animal and has knowledge. So Human person is not only animal but he is also rational animal. Knowledge comes out from intellect and will and be capable to know good and evil. Rational capacity leads human person towards goal and this goal is dignity of love, dignity of equality. Human life begins with the loving relationship of male and female. It includes physical union of sperm and ovum. So any type of intervention of life is morally evil. 

 

Double Effect Theory: It is a principle applied when there is no any secondary choice. Both the choices are evil but the lesser evil is tolerated.  This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable. St. Thomas Aquinas introduced the principle of double effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art7). The evil and the good effect must at least equally directly proceed from the act; or else the immediate effect must be good. It may never be evil such as a hemorrhage in the uterus during pregnancy.

Principles of Totality: According to Thomas Aquinas, all of the organs and other parts of the body exist for the sake of the whole person. Because the purpose of the part is to serve the whole, any action that damages a part of the body or prevents it from fulfilling its purpose violates the natural order and is morally wrong. This is called the “principle of totality.” It means the preservation of the whole organism is more important than the conservation of a part. The principle of totality states that all decisions in medical ethics must prioritize the good of the entire person, including physical, psychological and spiritual factors. The principle of totality is used as an ethical guideline by Catholic healthcare institutions.

The Moral Problems connected to the beginning and end of human life: Life begins at “conception” (the fertilization of egg by sperm). Human life begins. It is a human being. To kill it is the equivalent of murder. The church teaches that life should not be prematurely shortened because it is a gift from God. The

Beginning: Life once conceived, must be protected with the utmost care. The abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes which are the moral problems in several cases. Abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception, whether before or after implantation in the womb. A direct abortion is one that is intended either as an end in itself or as a means to an end. It is a willful attack on unborn human life. the Charter of the Rights of the Family, published by the Holy See, confirmed that Human life must be absolutely respected and protected from the moment of conception. recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote* resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted. Certainly no experimental datum can be in Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.

Physical life as a fundamental human value:

The value of life is an economic value used to quantify the benefit of avoiding a fatality. It is also referred to as the cost of life, value of preventing a fatality (VPF) and implied cost of averting a fatality (ICAF). ... It is mainly used in circumstances of saving lives as opposed to taking lives or "producing" lives. The values which are considered basic inherent values in humans include truth, honesty, loyalty, love, peace, etc. because they bring out the fundamental goodness of human beings and society at large. Values reflect our sense of right and wrong. They help us grow and develop. They help us create the future we want. The decisions we make every day are a reflection of our values.

Personal dignity and respect for physical life:

If someone has dignity, it means they are worthy of respect. ... Someone with dignity carries herself well. If you lose an election, and you say nasty things about your opponent and try to undermine her, you are acting without dignity. Human dignity is the recognition that human beings possess a special value intrinsic to their humanity and as such are worthy of respect simply because they are human beings. Thus every human being, regardless of age, ability, status, gender, ethnicity, etc., is to be treated with respect.

 

5^th Commandments:

To kill someone is not the same as murdering them according to the Bible. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. The command not to murder applies to human beings and not to animals. God gave animals to mankind for his use (Genesis 1:26-30, 9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat animals and the environment (Genesis 2:15, Deuteronomy 22:6-7, 25:4, Proverbs 12:10). Ancient Israelites, under the Old Covenant, were allowed to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17,21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10. Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). He also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34, Deuteronomy 19:1-13).

The primary reason God hates murder is that out of all creation, only human are made in his image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:4-6). Even before the codification of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, the murder of other human beings was wrong (Genesis 4:8-12, 4:23-24, 9:4-6, Exodus 1:16-17). While on earth, Jesus spoke out against murder (Matthew 5:21-26, Mark 10:17-19). We also see in the writings of Paul (Romans 1:18, 29-32, 13:8-10, Galatians 5:19-21), James (James 2:8-11, 4:1-3), Peter (1 Peter 4:15-16) and John (Revelation 9:20-21, 21:7-8, 22:14-15) that murder is wrong.

In Matthew 5:21-26 Jesus amplifies the meaning of the sixth commandment “thou shall not kill”. Hebrings out that to commit murder means more than just killing someone, it means having an angry and unforgiving attitude towards them (Matthew 5:21-26).

The apostle John elaborates on this by writing that to hate someone is the same as murdering them. He states, “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15, NKJV).

Murder like all sin, beginnings in the human mind (Matt. 15:18-19, Mark 7:20-23) it starts as a thought, in this case hatred, which leads to the action of murder (James 1:13-15, 4:1-3). The opposite of hating someone is loving them, we should even love our enemies (Matt. 5:43-48), seeking not revenge, but looking for ways to help them (Romans 12:17-21).

Application of Traditional moral Principles in the area of Physical life: The lesser of two evils, action with double effect and Principle of Totality.

But allowing a criminal to go free is perhaps the lesser of two evils if the alternative is imprisoning an innocent person.

Action with Double Effect

This principle aims to provide specific guideline for determining when it is morally perform an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results. The principle has its historical roots in the medieval natural law tradition, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274) and has been refined both in its general formulation and in its application by generations of Catholic moral theologians. Although there has been significant disagreement about the precise formulation of this principle, it generally states that, in cases where a contemplated action has both good effects and bad effects, the action is permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the evil result. It has many obvious applications to morally complex cases in which one cannot achieve a particular desired good result without also bringing about some clear evil. The principle of double effect, one largely confined to discussion by Catholic moral theologians, in recent years has figured prominently in the discussion of both ethical theory and applied ethics by a broad range of contemporary philosophers.

Applications. The principle of double effect has played a significant role in the discussion of many difficult normative questions. Its most prominent applications are in medical ethics, where it figures prominently in attempts to distinguish among permissible and impermissible procedures in a range of obstetrical cases. The Catholic magisterium has argued that the principle allows one to distinguish morally among cases where a pregnancy may need to be ended in order to preserve the life of the mother. The principle is alleged to allow the removal of a life-threatening cancerous uterus, even though this procedure will bring the death of a fetus, on the grounds that in this case the death of the fetus is not “directly” intended. The principle disallows cases, however, in which a craniotomy (the crushing of the fetus’s skull) is required to preserve a pregnant woman’s life, on the grounds that here a genuine evil, the death of the fetus, is “directly” intended. There is significant disagreement, even among those philosophers who accept the principle, about the cogency of this application. Some philosophers and theologians, by emphasizing the fourth, “proportionality”, condition, argue that the greater value attaching to the pregnant woman’s life makes even craniotomy morally acceptable. Others fail to see a morally significant difference between the merely “foreseen” death of the fetus in the cancerous uterus case and the “directly” intended death in the craniotomy case.

The Principle of Totality

During the 1920s, the practice of compulsory sterilization in the United States become commonplace. The Supreme Court even went so far as declaring the constitutionality of the sterilization laws in the 1927 decision in the case of Buck v. Bell. In the majority brief written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court argued in favor of this practice by saying that “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.... Three generations of imbeciles are enough”. The Church for her part vehemently opposed the practice by appealing to the principle of totality. Because this principle is often cited in support of Catholic Moral teaching related to medical ethics it is instructive to examine it in some detail.

In its simplest for3m, the principle of totality holds that under certain circumstances it is morally permissible to sacrifice the good of a part for the sake of the whole. However, this needs further qualification in order to see why something like the Eugenics program of the 1920s was morally wrong. Justice Holmes in his argument though that for the sake of the whole of society, it would be better to sterilize some of the members.

Conclusion: Human Values reflect the sense of right and wrong in a person. They also refer to appropriate courses of action, values define what ‘ought’ to be in society. Trust and Affection are seen as foundational and complete values in a society.