Living and Dying Ethically

Photo courtesy of wiki commons

Frequently there are news items that challenge me and bring up various questions. It was little wonder therefore, that this weeks news regarding the expansion in distribution in the RU486 tablet ( which is prescribed to terminate early stage pregnancies) gave me pause for thought (SMH and Australian).

The debate surrounding the use of this medication, is a sensitive one, and has been bubbling away since around 2006 when the drug was first given a very limited release  in Australia. The 'Therapeutic Goods Administration' (TGA) recently decided to allow a wider use of the drug. This will no doubt see the discussion heat up again. This post will not cover the issue of abortion directly, I write though, as I have found a recent read through of  Case #17 entitled  "Living And Dying Ethically" quite timely as I think through many of the issues that arise from these recent news articles.


All the articles of  Case #17 were useful in light of  the current debate, and well worth a read. Megan Best's article entitled "Embryo Liberation" is very insightful. While it isn't about abortion, it examines the ethics surrounding the use of embryos for research, (after they have been discarded as potential IVF embryos). The article investigates the question of when life begins, exploring first the basic biology of conception. Best concludes that fertilization,

"… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte (egg). The embryo, from the time it is created, is a unified, unique, dynamic, self directed whole, not just a collection of cells."

Megan Best explains that secular views concerning the issues surrounding the embryo debate come down to a matter of person-hood. She contends that human personhood is not merely a matter of biological conception. Secularists see personhood as demonstrated through such things as self awareness, a rational nature and the ability to exercise this nature. The question of personhood is also overridden by many in the debate, as they consider consequentialism (ie in short, the end justifies the means approach).

Our community has decided that, while the destruction of developing humans may been seen to be regrettable, the potential consequences of their destruction—medical cures through embryonic stem cell research, improved IVF, freedom to women through availability of some contraceptives and abortion—justify the use.

Finally Dr Best concludes her thesis with an investigation  into the biblical view surrounding the debate. In essence she states there is is no doubt that the Bible indicates that we have a relationship with God that originates in the womb, supporting her conclusion with various biblical references.

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139:13-16)

As stated in the introduction of this post, the issues involved in the RU486 debate are challenging, emotive, and understandably we often wish to avoid the discussion altogether. However I would recommend a re-reading of Dr Megan Best's excellent article, as it clearly defines many of the views and history of the issues surrounding the debate. Increasing our understanding of all the relevant information and becoming more familar with all the facets of the discussion, will ensure we may better be informed, and be able to constructively contribute to future conversations regarding this most difficult topic.

The main article I reference in this post is available as free download from the CASE Website. CASE Associates receive Case magazine 4 times per year as part of their benefits. For blog followers who are yet to be CASE Associates you can sign up HERE or order a single copy HERE.

Edwina Hine (New College and CASE)

Education based on reason alone falls short

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has offered some interesting comments on the limitations of reason in education. The address was presented at Rikkyo Gaukin Anglican University in Tokyo on the 21st September. He was there to receive an honorary doctorate and to speak as part of the institution's 150th anniversary.

In his address, Dr Williams suggested that the record of universities in applying a purely rational approach to intellectual and academic life is problematic:

"Christian doctrine regards human beings as made in the divine image; and that has regularly been interpreted as meaning that human beings share something of the rational nature of God. But to use those words today instantly gives a false impression. We understand 'reason' as a way of arguing and testing propositions – usually so as to become better at manipulating the world round us. Because religious faith is not a matter of argument in this way, it is then easy to conclude that faith and reason are enemies, or at least operating in different territory."

He argues that faith has a place alongside reason in the modern university, whether Christian like Rykkyo Gaukin University or secular like most. He uses the concept of the 'reasonable' or 'rational' human being to discuss what it is that universities do and how faith has an important place on campus. The 'reasonable' person he suggests is one who seeks 'not first and foremost to master and control a passive universe around', but someone who seeks to discover the 'rhythms and patterns of reality' and so understand themselves more fully. He continues:

"Sadly, there are many in our contemporary culture who believe that because religious faith is not rational in their sense – simply a judgement based on evidence and argument – it is bound to be something that breaks relations and nourishes violence. But the sober testimony of the twentieth century is that the rationality of secular thinking is no guarantee of universal understanding and reconciliation. A rationality that has brought us into the age of nuclear weaponry and global economic meltdown invites some sharp questions, to put it mildly; which has something to do with the revulsion in some quarters against the very idea of reason, against science and the notion of universal values and much else besides. As the Pope has argued several times in recent years, the drift towards relativism and pluralism is not the triumph but the defeat of reason; and as he has also insisted, the response of religious faith should not be to glory in the overthrow of rationality but to reclaim the idea and set it on its ancient foundations once more."

He goes on to suggest that a purely functional development of education effectively misses the "true nature of that which is not understood":

"Relating to God requires of us a radical acceptance of the fact that we are dependent beings, that we always stand on the edge of mysteries we cannot fathom, and that the true direction of our lives is not necessarily what our own unexamined and selfish ambition might suggest. Relating to God creates in us the habits of silence and listening, the willingness to be questioned and to question ourselves. Specifically for Christians, relating to God means growing into the role of a child of God, called to maturity, to a life in which dependence and creativity go side by side, inseparably. Called to mature into a life that reflects that of Christ, the Christian believer seeks to live at once in a deep humility that is constantly aware of the possibility of failure and the reality of not-knowing, and in a sense of liberty, dignity and worth, grounded in the trust that God looks at each human person with an endless loving respect and a desire to nourish and fulfil that person. Out of this comes a whole scheme of ethics, a patient respect for one another and for the material world, a realism and a sense of the provisional that never simply gives way to cynicism or despair."

You can read the full text of the talk by following the link below.

Related Links

Full text of the address can be found here

Apologetics and the University (here)

What J.K. Rowling gained from university (my previous post on 'The Benefits of Failure') here

Personal responsibility: Can we mandate it?

Lisa Pryor on personal responsibility

I don’t read her column often but Lisa Pryor’s Sydney Morning Herald (22.3.08) “Cautionary tale about personal responsibility…” caught my attention. The piece got me thinking about the general topic. As the head of a large university residential community of 248 eighteen to twenty two year-olds I regularly find myself needing to encourage personal responsibility and wondering how there can be more of it in the lives of selected individuals. Motivated by recent statements by the Federal government (particularly about binge drinking) Lisa Pryor ponders what it is and moves step-wise through her ruminations. Is it:

• “not acting like idiots”,
• behaving “properly without the need for government intervention to control behaviour”,
• “making individuals accept the consequences of their actions”.

Eventually she concludes that “personal responsibility is everything and nothing, a grab bag of not much at all, malleable enough to be totally meaningless”. Is this an adequate response?


What is personal responsibility?

To me, personal responsibility is very important and is just as much about being responsible to others as to one’s self. It seems to me that there are two elements to personal responsibility. When I see people acting in ways I think are irresponsible my thoughts are often based on what I think the consequences might be for them and for others. So its sort of, responsibility to self, and responsibility to others.

We seek to act in ways that avoid infringing the law, the punishment of parents, loss of respect from people we value, unintended consequences such as injury, loss of wealth, loss of health or injury, loss of job etc. This is about us losing something, about cost to self. But personal responsibility also includes acting in ways that consider the consequences of our actions for others (which might seem incompatible, but stay with me). Will I cause pain for those who I respect and love? Will I disrupt my team’s efforts, my family’s holiday, the group well being, a quiet night for the police? Will I endanger the rescue team sent to save me? Will my boss (wife, mother, teacher, captain etc) be hurt or affected by my actions?

Ultimately, the responsible person accepts that his/her actions have consequences for themselves and others. The place of values and worldview in all of this is intriguing. If you’re a utilitarian (see my previous post on worldview) then you’ll be less worried about the 'rightness' and the law and more concerned about personal happiness and the impact on self. If you’re a liberal democrat you’ll be against just about any type of government action and regulation, full stop. If you’re a Buddhist you’ll seek to be responsible by acting well towards other sentient beings in the hope that you’ll gain some favour (Mike Wilson wrote a great piece on Tibetan Buddhism in Case 14). If you’re a believer in New Age philosophy you'll be seeking happiness and life fulfilment. I don't think that any of the worldviews that sit behind the above religions and philosophies adequately combine both sides of the equation, responsibility to self and responsibility to others.

The basis of 'right' and responsible action

Oliver O'Donovan's work on moral reasoning is helpful here. I want to suggest that Lisa Pryor misses the point that the foundation of personal responsibility is the ability to make right moral choices. In a series of lectures at New College in 2007 Professor O'Donovan reminded us that moral reasoning requires us to think more seriously about making right choices based on what is “good” and “right”. Moral thinking he said requires a journey from observation to obligation, from “goodness of the world” to the “rightness of some action”. He also talked about a right understanding of self and its place in how we make choices and act. He explained that our love of God and neighbour must be self-aware, not simply absent-minded.

Reflective self-love, the foundation of other loves, is the polar opposite of an unreflective pre-moral self-absorption, a self-complacence which consists in a failure to grasp the concreteness of the self, and so leaves us at the centre of our own universe without any bearings upon the reality of others.

You can read the full texts or download audio files of O'Donovan's lectures from the New College website.

As a Christian my desire to act responsibly is driven primarily by my faith (i.e. it should be). The teachings of the Bible, centred on God's plan of redemption for his people, hold these two things in perfect balance. Our most important act of responsibility is to first recognise that God is sovereign. We need to stand with David who prayed to God "But my eyes are fixed on you, O Sovereign LORD; in you I take refuge—do not give me over to death. Keep me from the snares they have laid for me, from the traps set by evildoers." (Psalm 141:8, 9). God made all things and controls my destiny. He is the ruler of the world including me. I am imperfect, indeed sinful like everyone else, a consequence of the first man and woman’s rebellion against God (Genesis 3:1-19). He demands my commitment to him and provides a way for the forgiveness of all my past, present and future sins. Jesus died as a punishment for my sin and God adopts into his family all who believe in him and who accept this free gift of grace and love (Ephesians 1:4-6).

As a consequence of this enormous gift, I seek to lead a life that is obedient to him and which seeks to bring honour and glory to his name (not mine!). This leads me to seek to live a life where I am the best husband, father, grandfather, brother, employee, neighbour, driver (ouch!), team member, church member, citizen, tax payer, mate etc. I live my life hopefully in such a way that I hold in perfect tension the need to be responsible for the specific consequences of my actions all the while trying to be responsible for the good of others based on an understanding that God has forgiven me through no good effort of mine. As Paul urged the church in Rome, I am to lead a different life.

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (Romans 12:1)

I can’t speak for Lisa Pryor's motivation for personal responsibility (which I’m sure as a good citizen she sees as important), but I see a huge challenge for any government that seeks to legislate for personal responsibility. Its motivation will of course be the good of society, but just how does it decide what this good is? Quite a challenge in a pluralist democratic society.

Oliver O'Donovan speaks on Moral Reasoning

Audio files and PDF transcripts of Oliver O'Donovan's three 2007 New College Lectures are now available to download from the New College website.

Series Title:
Morally awake? Admiration and resolution in the light of Christian faith

Tuesday 4th Sept | Waking

The metaphor of wakefulness is constantly drawn on in the Gospels to focus the heart of moral sensibility. How does the invocation of God serve to make the moral stance conceivable to us?

Wednesday 5th Sept | Admiring

Moral attentiveness to the world is a task of affective intelligence, of “admiration”, not merely of “cognition”. What kind of coherence and order do we suppose in our world and how do assertions about a “Word of God” serve to underpin that coherence?

Thursday 6th Sept | Resolving

How can we make the transition of reason from what is the case to what we are to do? How may we intelligently “frame” an action to perform without arbitrariness?

O'Donovan Lectures Available

Professor Oliver O'Donovan's addreses for the 2007 New College Lectures are now available from the New College Website.

As indicated in my previous posts the series was titled Morally awake? Admiration and resolution in the light of Christian faith. Professor O'Donovan suggested in his lectures that the experience of moral wakefulness is universal and ways of describing the experience, and the philosophical puzzles they pose numerous. In his three talks he considered how we overcome the constant tensions that arise between the objective and subjective, valuing and deciding, “good” and the “right”? He argued that Christian faith can shed light on this commonest and yet most mysterious of human experiences.

The three lectures were:

Tuesday 4th Sept | Waking

The metaphor of wakefulness is constantly drawn on in the Gospels to focus the heart of moral sensibility. How does the invocation of God serve to make the moral stance conceivable to us?

Wednesday 5th Sept | Admiring

Moral attentiveness to the world is a task of affective intelligence, of “admiration”, not merely of “cognition”. What kind of coherence and order do we suppose in our world and how do assertions about a “Word of God” serve to underpin that coherence?

Thursday 6th Sept | Resolving

How can we make the transition of reason from what is the case to what we are to do? How may we intelligently “frame” an action to perform without arbitrariness?

O'Donovan on Moral Reasoning

The 2007 New College Lectures have just concluded and all those who attended were recipients of some wonderful teaching from Professor Oliver O’Donovan. When I met with him in Edinburgh last year to discuss the series Professor O’Donovan suggested that he wanted to present three talks on Moral Reasoning. He indicated that he had much thinking to do in the area and wanted to spend (perhaps) the next 10 years (!) exploring the topic. The series he presented on the 4th, 5th and 6th of September was titled Morally Awake? Admiration and resolution in the light of Christian faith. His talks were titled Waking, Admiring and Resolving.

Waking - On Night 1 he framed his opening talk around wakefulness - the mind alert to shape decisions and actions - using the metaphor of a journey. He suggested that moral reasoning requires us to think more seriously about the need for frequent journeys from what is the case, to what is not yet the case. To consider making right choices based on what is “good” and “right”. Moral thinking he said requires a journey from observation to obligation, from “goodness of the world” to the “rightness of some action”.

He outlined that we are to be attentive to: a) the world that surrounds us and with which we interact, b) self, c) and time, being only able to act now, although being able to reflect on the past and imagine the future. [An aside: I’d like to think through the place of prayer as we not only imagine the future but seek God’s intervention to direct our paths in specific directions; to make our imagined future reality. I think of Abraham pleading with God in Gen 18:16-19:29 to spare Sodom; seeking to God’s mind and the future and being changed in the process himself]. He also reminded us that to live life with one’s eyes closed is no excuse for our actions.

Admiring - On night two he explored “Admiration” and suggested that it “finds its proper object in the good, and terminates there”. Admiration is not mere effort or action, rather, it is “rest” in the biblical sense of the word. A form of knowledge, an experience of the objective. He suggested that through this “cognitive affection” we experience the world. Not just knowledge of “bare facts”, or unselfconscious objective knowledge. Moral knowledge is reflective.

There was much to consider. For me, his explanation of the place of attentiveness to the self was helpful. Our love of God and neighbour he suggested must be self-aware, not simply absent-minded.

Reflective self-love, the foundation of other loves, is the polar opposite of an unreflective pre-moral self-absorption, a self-complacence which consists in a failure to grasp the concreteness of the self, and so leaves us at the centre of our own universe without any bearings upon the reality of others.

An ordered knowledge of the world should lead to an ordered knowledge of self. Self not in competition with our “neighbour”, “God” or anything else. A warning against disproportionate attention to self.

There was also an acknowledgement that Christians believe that God is the source of our awaking and that the world is not fully grasped except as God’s creation and indeed new creation. The goodness of God is not just a gift, but also a promise of that which we might anticipate and to which the Bible in its pages point.

Resolving - On night three he closed the circle so to speak on his first night metaphor – the conclusion to the journey. [An aside: I assume also that in one sense it is the beginning, with “resolving” leading in turn to further experiences of “awaking”.] His concern in this lecture was how we make the transition of reason from what is the case to what we are to do. He started by pointing out that each area of experience of the world requires its own path of moral discussion (e.g. bioethics, political ethics, economic ethics etc). Moral reasoning is not mere problem solving, not just seeking solutions for life’s dilemmas. “Decision” he argued is “thinking brought to the point of action”. Not simply which of two courses of action to take, but simply “to take a course of action”. Not in a vacuum, but shaped by a train of thought which has resolved upon a course of action”.

He cautioned against viewing practical reason as ‘deliberation” and of weighing things up - of “proportional calculation”. He stressed that reason as resolution is to clarify our view of the work God has prepared before us to walk in, to point to where we might step in making a decision and engaging in action.” Quoting Paul’s letter to the Romans (12:1-2) he reminded us that we are to be “living sacrifices” as a consequence of “renewed minds” – thought leading to practical reasoning and action. The mind renewed “towards” the discernment of God’s will”.

In moving from observation to obligation, from “goodness of the world” to the “rightness of some action”, he suggested “not everything that should be done, should by us be done” (quoting Paul Ramsey). And, that compromise is part of resolving, “compromises are decisions, explicit or implicit, that render ideals practicable”. But of course with the sober reminder that there can be bad compromises as well as bad ideals. [An aside: This is an area of his talk that raised issues for me (and others), that I need to think through, as much of Paul’s writing would point us in the opposite direction at times, avoiding compromise that is counter to God’s truth in his Word].

He brought the discussion back to faith, love and hope and their relationship to moral reasoning and practical action, and offered a challenge, as well as a question, “How are we to understand the thought, that a process of thought beginning with love and proceeding, through hope, to faith, must reach love once again as its climax?”

Finally, he suggested that admiration is made perfect when faith and hope lead us beyond the seen world to the love of God and that resolution is made perfect when faith and hope lead us beyond individual decision to common service of God pursued in love for one another. Resolving that we will act together as a community he suggested is the purest form of action. [An aside: While he was making a general point about Christian community here, his example was very much focussed on the Anglican Communion. I suspect many would question this point, certainly the first question in question time gently challenged the point. While Scripture does stress that Christians are to seek to be like-minded, this is a call to have the mind of Christ. If seeking to live in harmony requires us to act in harmonious error, then Scripture would call upon us to take a stand against views that are counter to God’s wisdom as reflected in his Word]. Professor O’Donovan’s point was essentially to stress the need for love and respect within the body as we morally reason and seek resolution and action together. More specifically he was gently arguing for denominational unity, no more and no less. His conclusion returned to the more fundamental truth in Paul’s letter to the Philippians that we are to seek to have the mind and love of Christ as we are lead by the Spirit to act with one purpose.

If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. (Phil 2:1-2)

The Lectures were outstanding. Professor O’Donovan did not disappoint. While as expected, the talks were demanding, it was a privilege to gain access to some first thoughts on an exploration of an old (and important) topic. While the lectures resonated well with Professor O’Donovan’s previous work, he was sharing and in a sense rehearsing some new ideas. The talks will be available on the New College website in the next week. Byron Smith has also provided his own summary and comments on his Nothing New Under the Sun Blog that are worth a read.