The Problem of Evil and Theodicy

Bioethics Needs Natural Law

VATICAN CITY, FEB. 14, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI is affirming that bioethics, with all of the scientific developments it takes into account, needs the principles of natural law so as to uphold human dignity.

The Pope stated this Saturday in an audience with members of the Pontifical Academy for Life who gathered in Rome for a general assembly on the topic of bioethics and natural law.

"The relationship between bioethics and the natural moral law" appears more "relevant in the present context because of the continual development in the scientific sphere," the Pontiff noted.

He affirmed, "The issues that revolve around the theme of bioethics allow us to confirm how much these underlying questions in the first place pose the 'anthropological question.'"

The Holy Father stated that "it is necessary to create a holistic pedagogical project that permits us to confront these issues in a positive, balanced and constructive vision, above all in the relationship between faith and reason."

He continued: "The questions of bioethics often place the reminder of the dignity of the person in the foreground.

"This dignity is a fundamental principle that the faith in Jesus Christ crucified and risen has always defended, above all when it is ignored in regard to the humblest and most vulnerable persons: God loves every human being in a unique and profound way."

"Bioethics, like every discipline, needs a reminder able to guarantee a consistent understanding of ethical questions that, inevitably, emerge before possible interpretive conflicts," Benedict XVI stated.

Human dignity

"In such a space a normative recall to the natural moral law presents itself," he added. "The recognition of human dignity, in fact, as an inalienable right first finds its basis in that law not written by human hand but inscribed by God the Creator in the heart of man."

The Pope pointed out that "joining bioethics and natural moral law permits the best confirmation of the necessary and unavoidable reminder of the dignity that human life intrinsically possesses from its first instant to its natural end."

He underlined the task of ensuring "that human life always be seen as the inalienable subject of rights and never as an object subjugated to the will of the strongest."

"History has shown us how dangerous and deleterious a state can be that proceeds to legislate on questions that touch the person and society while pretending itself to be the source and principle of ethics," the Pontiff warned.

He explained, "Without universal principles that permit a common denominator for the whole of humanity the danger of a relativistic drift at the legislative level is not at all something should be underestimated."

"The natural moral law," the Holy Father affirmed, "strong in its universal character, allows us to avert such a danger and above all offers to the legislator the guarantee for an authentic respect of both the person and the entire created order."

Plato, a very brief intro

Socrates, a very brief intro

Kant ~ The Moral Argument

Kant & the Summum Bonum ~ The Moral Argument

TRANSCRIPT
It is an a-posteriori argument.
• The argument starts from our experience of morality (right and wrong) and concludes that God must exist to explain this fully.
• Kant didn't believe the argument proved God's existence. Rather, Kant said it was reasonable to postulate God in order to make final sense of reality.
• It is based on three assumptions:
(i) We are free to do both right and wrong.
(ii) God will reward the person that lives dutifully.
(iii) There us an after-life to make this possible.

So here is how it goes...
1. People who are good should be happy. However, this is not always true. Some good people are very unhappy because life treats them badly.
2. There must be something else which makes them act morally. This is the highest good or what Kant call 'Summum bonum' and their sense of duty to achieve the highest good.
3. Our 'reason' tells us which laws should be obeyed; these are laws that can universalised. For example, we know stealing is wrong because if everyone went around stealing, society would fail. They are called categorical imperatives; non-negotiable and absolute requirements fulfilling their duty.
4. There must be a reward for our moral behaviour in the next world- the summum bonum.
5. Hence, it is reasonable to believe God exists as he is entity that promises to reward us.
Sigmund Freud's criticisms
• He believed our sense of duty and moral awareness can be explained by socialisation i.e. the adaptation of behavioural patterns of the surrounding culture.
• He said our conscious (decisions to do right or wrong) was a product of our unconscious mind or super-ego of the human psyche.
There are 3 parts to the human psyche...
1. ID- Basic instincts and primitive desires e.g. hunger, lust, greed etc.
2. Ego- Perception of the external world that makes us aware of the 'reality principle'. It is one's most outward part and personality.
3. Super-ego - This is the unconscious mind which consists of: (i) the ego ideal: this praises all good actions and (ii) conscious who makes you feel guilty for bad actions.
• For Freud, moral awareness cannot derive from a divine origin because then the commands would be absolute and we all would come to the same conclusion. For example; in the case euthanasia some find it unmoral and other find it moral (relieving loved one from pain)
A further development on the criticism...
• If the conscious which makes good and bad decisions is the word of God than you would expect the moral code enforced by God to be consistent.
• However, this does not explain cases such as the Yorkshire Ripper who claimed to follow voices in his head.
• It can be implied from that, that the conscious is not truly objective.
• Therefore, it has a human not divine origin.