A Culture of the “Good Life”
Like Adam, I too breathe the rarefied air of the Ivory Tower. My office, however, is on the “Humanities and Social Sciences” floor, not the “Physical Sciences” levels, and so I take a different sort of real-world controversial argument for granted. For instance, I once began an essay by writing “Nation-states are a shared delusion.” I not only believe this, I think it is, in some sense, obvious–but it is only obvious if you are familiar with a certain body of theory and are aware of history in a different way than most people are. And, in good academic fashion, I am continually unable to translate my ideas to practice: The State may also rest on a foundation of delusions, but I pay my taxes every year.
Even when the answers aren’t so obvious, the questions remain provocative–both by raising interesting (and important) lines of debate, and by scandalizing those who regard Truth as something received and better left unquestioned. One question that the phrase the “culture of life” raises for me, then, is a question that most people apparently assume is self-evident: “What do you mean by life?”
When pressed, most people would be hard put to offer a consistent definition, or to put forward a taxonomy that included earthworms, but not viruses or self-replicating computer programs, or even to argue against why viruses or self-replicating computer programs should be ruled out a priori. Even limiting the ideas of the “culture of life” to human beings (this is implicitly what the phrase’s advocates do; none of them, to my knowledge, have joined a PETA-like campaign to advocate for a dignified death for the cow and the chicken in the slaughterhouse) poses an immense question: All human life? All the time? And just the biological life?
The first two questions require a definition of what “human life” is. Definitions vary. One of my professors once simplified the “European” and “Chinese” philosophies–oversimplifying, and deliberately so–into their basic beliefs about humans. The headline news from European philosophy, he declared, was that you have a soul–that there is something unique and previous and innate inside each of us that was worth protecting. The Chinese offered a different vision: Their headline news was that one’s self was not innate, but was rather the result of one’s interactions and relationships with the rest of the world (and principally the world of men). One can imagine, of course, the consequences flowing from these distinct definitions.
Martha Nussbaum–a Western philosopher, among other distinctions–offers a (long) list of what humans need in order to lead a “good” life (not in the sense of comfortable, but in the Aristotelian usage of meaningful). On the list: The ability to employ practical reason, to associate with other humans, to fulfill or at least wilfully deny sexual desires, and–most interestingly–”[b]eing able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection of one’s own life.” To exercise those functions, though, an earlier set of criteria must be met in order for Nussbaum to agree that what is being studied is a human life. It is important to note how important the ability to reason and to exercise one’s choices are to Nussbaum’s definitions of both a human life and the good life, respectively. These ideas trump even genetics: “…certain severely damaged infants are not human ever, even if born from two human parents: again, those with global and total sensory incapacity and/or no consciousness or thought; also, I think, those with no ability at all to recognize or relate to others.” The implications for the Schiavo case are immediately clear.
The implications of these different philosophies of life extend beyond such special cases, though. If the critical concept in one’s definition of life is the innate uniqueness and valuation of something hidden and internal–let us come out and call it a soul–then the philosophies that flow from that are apt to be less interested with the nurturing and exercise of one’s interpersonal and external abilities. So it is that Nussbaum, along with Amartya Sen, argue that we should measure freedom not by the mere existence of laws that allow for the ability to enjoy free speech, but rather by the extent to which all members of a community can exercise that right. Women in the United States, for instance, have a legal right to become President–but so far that right remains unexercised. (See here for more, in an essay that predates my reading of Sen and Nussbaum.) The converse of this argument, of course, is that a culture which does not value the innate worth of every human being (or, like Nussbaum, which holds a counterintuitive–to our notions–idea of what “human” is) will routinely acquiesce in practices that we, today, find almost barbarous (such as the practice, once widely-known in the West and practiced in China until recently–and possibly even today–of infanticide).
Nussbaum, however, would plead for us to at least ponder the meaning of the phrase “culture of life.” If activists are willing to make such a strong stand for one woman whom they believe to be alive despite all the medico-legal-bureaucratic determinations to the contrary, then they should be many times more scandalized by the higher rates of infant mortality and the lower life expectancies of many communities of minorities in the United States compared with other industrialized nations. (Indeed, in some cases, compared with the Third World: Sen notes that African-Americans in Harlem have a lower life expectancy than Indians in the state of Kerala.)
The United Nations–using Sen’s methodology–has compiled a table showing the ranking of the world’s countries by their ability to enlarge the substantive enjoyment of political and economic freedoms; although we can (rightly) dispute specific rankings on the table, nonetheless it is clear that in life expectancy and education the United States could be doing a better job. A culture focused on the good life would not necessarily deny the soul, but it would worry about these questions more often and more urgently than the life of any single member of the community.
14 Responses to “A Culture of the “Good Life””
Shared delusion, no–common way of organizing relationships with no corporeal existence outside the shared weltschauung, yes.
But as Gellner notes (among others), that’s not how nationalists (and even non-nationalists in quotidian life) experience nations: They are reified into something far more than an epistemological construct, and are given personalities (or at least enduring attributes) that simply don’t hold up to scrutiny. Further, the number of conflicting national identities within a given territory (not to mention conflicting non-national identities that further complicate the picture) only add to the basically irrational foundation of the nation-state ideal as commonly experienced. (As my comment about taxes implies, though, you might want to be cautious about neglecting the very real prerogatives the ’shared delusion’ retains….)
For your consideration in determining the meaning of ‘life’ in the context of the phrase ‘culture of life’, which is not entirely synonymous with ‘the good life’ as expressed above, but which may include many parts of it. I believe Pope John Paul II inititated and expounded upon the culture of life prior to anyone else of which I am aware.
MESSAGE
OF THE HOLY FATHER
POPE JOHN PAUL II
FOR THE VIII WORLD YOUTH DAY
“I came that they might have life, and have it to the full” (Jn 10:10).
… We are witnessing a “succession of empires” in our world
“Is not the history of mankind deeply marked by a frantic and tragic search for something or someone able to free it from death and guarantee life?”
With all respect to HH, I pose this question: “Better Socrates dead or a pig alive?” There are worse things than death. And I’m hardly willing to let this be the policy for a secular state.
I didn’t realize we were striving for a secular state, if by that you mean a strict separation of church and state where the atheist trumps all other claims to be heard since they must not be offended with any God talk. I prefer for there to be a place for faith-based initiatives, for example. Or, more generally, there must be some acknowledgment of divine law, by which we can gauge our human laws. If you wish to elevate Ms. Nussbaum’s law to that distinction, then that is your prerogative, though I will be looking it over rather carefully.
I also find your equation of Terri Schiavo with a live pig to be unfair. First, in the particular case of Terri there is enough doubt about her mental life that one might ask that we ‘err on the side of life’ in granting new finding of fact in the case. Second, To equate human life with thinking life, such that when thinking ceases, one ceases to be human, is also subject to debate.
This article by David B. Hart is rather well written, discussing the matter of the soul and the body and the Church’s understanding of them.
Pope John Paul II was not making statements that can be used as prooftexting for any particular moral situation, the Church has moral theologians using their brains, studying lengthy tradition, biology, varied fields, for that.
The Socrates/pig comment is a paraphrase of Bentham, who wrote that it was better to be Socrates unhappy than a pig happy–better, that is, to be a rational, reasoning, intentional being (in short, human) than a sensual organism. (This is the principal, and possibly the only, sustainable objection against the soma-suffused society of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.)
JPII may have written that the yearning of mankind eternally has been for life, but that can’t possibly be what he means to endorse, because life is not a moral imperative of itself: A church that acknowledges martyrdom can hardly admit otherwise.
By “secular” we do not have to mean “atheist,” but we can mean “pluralist”–that is, allowing representatives of many different communities to coexist without the domination of one over the others. Try out JPII’s argument on a Buddhist sometime.
Erico, you obviously prefer a society where “God talk” trumps other talk. I’m not going to say there are authorities on my team, I’m just going to state how I see it:
A state which is built on “divine law” (a concept which asks a lot of any rational human being) to measure our own laws against will never be truly free, because the “divine law” will always have to be interpreted by some humans who, regardless of what believers may claim, will use their own values and views in interpreting the “divine law”.
Everybody else will have to take them up on their word that they actually have received this “divine law” from a divine being.
A state shouldn’t be based on any religion, nor the denial of religion. However, it should be based on rational laws which at least doesn’t intentionally marginalize some, which all “divine laws” and their further interpretations are wont to do.
I say that there is no way in hell, nor on earth, that a nation built on religious law will lead to a society which is for the best of everyone, nay, not even the majority of people.
You can all use me as your authority on this!
Paul
Don’t want to fully enter the debate here Paul or take sides, just a Point of Order if you will…take into account “eternal life” in the case of martyrdom. Remember for JPII that eternal life is both material and spiritual, resurection includes mind and body. Just say no to Descartes!
Thank you for your comments. Prior responsibilities prevent me from responding at this time. Anyone else care to come to my defense?
Brian–I was hoping someone would bring that up:) I think erico’s interpretation of JPII’s comments (as I understand e.’s writing) misses that point, which is of course central to JPII’s entire mission. Mankind is not justified in always wanting more temporal life; it is, however, right to desire an end to the cycle of suffering that mortality requires (in JPII’s view) and therefore should desire salvation and eternal life….
I do, however, think that the Church would therefore agree that there’s a higher moral imperative than simple individual survival.
Around the Blogosphere
Stuff you should be reading and to which you should be reacting. You know, if that’s your bag, baby. Excerpts, conveniently designed to provoke you into clicking through, included at no extra charge. Where Else But the Brain?A brain-based ethics…
I shall respond to the criticisms of my posts first with specific responses, then with a longer reflection on whence they come. This will save the impatient reader undue consternation.
To Paul K Egell-Johnsen, I do invoke the authority of the Church, and I’m glad to have it. Regarding the proper way to build a nation, I am reminded of the famous quip of Churchill that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried. I don’t know why you object to putting the proposed laws to a vote. That’s what I’m suggesting, with fear and trepidation as to the wisdom of the populace. And I will quote the Pope, again, from the original quotation above, who said that “True and lasting unity cannot be created by coercion and violence. It can be achieved only by building on the foundations of a common heritage of values accepted and shared by all, values such as respect for the dignity of the human person, a willingness to welcome life, the defence of human rights, and openness to transcendence and the realm of the spirit.†We are free people, but free to do what is right (the Pope says this, too, somewhere). A biblical way to say this is that we are either slaves to sin, or slaves to Christ. These are principals to follow, working out a responsible medical ethics is difficult, indeed. But possible, and certainly rational.
To Mr. Musgrave, I was aware of the Socrates quotation you used; I thought the manner in which I rephrased your question was to the point, and might jar you into looking at what you were in fact saying.
You misread the Pope. We are not eternally striving for life, we are striving for eternal life. “Jesus came to provide the ultimate answer to the yearning for life and for the infinite which his Heavenly Father had poured into our hearts when he created us.â€
Finally, a Church that admits martyrdom admits that while the kingdom unfolds it is necessary to witness to the truth in the face of persecution, since the ‘light came into the world but the world preferred darkness.’ You seem to be mistaking both the Church’s position and my own. Continued existence at any cost is not required. For example, it is my understanding that extraordinary medical treatments are not required for terminally ill patients, according to Catholic medical ethics. But life in Christ includes living a moral life through all stages of life. The question is simply, “what is moral for those in PVS, those who are brain dead, those who are born with Down’s Syndrome.†I would encourage you to understand the Catholic position on end of life issues. Here’s a good place to start. Issues in Care for the Dying from Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition. Where it reads in part:
The mystery of Christ casts light on every facet of Catholic health care: to see Christian love as the animating principle of health care; to see healing and compassion as a continuation of Christ’s mission; to see suffering as a participation in the redemptive power of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection; and to see death, transformed by the resurrection, as an opportunity for a final act of communion with Christ.
I detect no requirement that one continue to live at all costs, but rather that death is a final opportunity for salvation.
I quoted at length from Pope John Paul because Mr. Musgrave was playing on the Pope’s formulation ‘culture of life’ to mean something entirely insufficient to what the Pope meant, and because he actually asked, “One question that the phrase the “culture of life” raises for me, then, is a question that most people apparently assume is self-evident: “What do you mean by life?”
. To draw out a little of what the Pope meant, I’ll use some biblical language. When the Pope says, “‘Life’ indicates the sum total of all the goods that people desire, and at the same time what makes them possible, obtainable and lasting” this would include the good life Mr. Musgrave speaks of, since Christ came that we might have abundant life, and it also includes “what makes them obtainable”, that is, Christ Himself. “I am the Life.” And when we partake in the life of Christ we partake in divinity. As St. Paul put it, through the fall of Adam we know death, through the new Adam we gain eternal life. Whence the phrase, ‘O happy fall”. Christ initiated the coming kingdom of God. It is already inaugurated. We partake in His life now. Yet His kingdom is still to come. In the meantime, creation groans, awaiting the fulfilment. This is the context in which the Christian places himself. Creation is good, nature is awesome, humans image a good God, yet we are still in travail, walking in the vale of tears. We know both. We look forward to eternal life fully realized.
Remember the comedian who joked that as the plane is going down in flames the Christians are sitting next to him singing Cumbaya? That’s the parody of Christianity that devalues this life, this world, in value of the next. Inasmuch as those singing Cumbaya are out of touch with what’s going on around them, they are insane. Perhaps it is comforting to think of them this way. It is Marx’s take. But I say this world is a gift. We are incarnate spirit. It is not that we are a ghost in the machine of our bodies; the spirit is not a vital entelechy haunting the regions of the brain, as Adam Tierney would have it. I would again urge you to read David Hart’s article, as he is at pains to disabuse us of the hard duality of body and soul, only better than I can.
Therefore, we respect the gift of life, inasmuch as what we do with our bodies now, in this life, is involved in our relationship with God, who became incarnate, to communicate himself with us. (the whole justification by faith versus works argument). We are working out our salvation here and now. We do not discard the body like the Raelians. Going back again to his message for the 8th world youth day the Pope says, “There are also false prophets and false teachers of how to live. First of all there are those who teach people to leave the body, time and space in order to be able to enter into what they call “true life”. They condemn creation, and in the name of deceptive spirituality they lead thousands of young people along the paths of an impossible liberation which eventually leaves them even more isolated, victims of their own illusions and of the evil in their own lives.”
Read the whole thing.
At the same time, there is a hope in the resurrection, and therefore a relative value to this life as compared to the life we will know when we shall see God face to face, as Brian pointed out and of which I am in complete agreement. I happen to think Brian was agreeing with me.
I can not read in your first mention of “divine law” any proposition that it should be put to a popular vote. Though, even as a popular vote I do not think it is a good thing, frankly you did not care to tell me why you believe a “divine law” hasn’t been twisted by human wills before it is put to such a vote, and thus rendered it not-divine at all.
And you are asking a significant number of people to vote on something which they don’t believe exists, ie. a divine being.
Why is it so important for fundamentalists to have a divinly inspired legal ground? Because they are fundamentalists, because they can not accept that the rationality of the human being. Putting it to a popular vote doesn’t absolve you of your fears and your unbending will of forcing everyone to accept your world view.
Surely you would not accept a “divine law” based on the muslim view of God? The jewish view? How about hindu or viking Gods? You see, if you want to create something based on “divine law” I have a problem seeing which divinity to follow, there are so many of them.
And surely, you would aknowledge the right of every divinity to add their views?
No, laws should be based on rational foundations, this article has gotten me interested in Nussbaum and her ideas. I’m much more comfortable with something built on such principles, which at least are founded on thought and rationality instead of your blind acceptance of “divine law” handed down from a doubtfoul divine being, written down by humans who have added their own views in the mix, rewritten, translated, and finally a new interpretation when framing the “divine law” for a country.
Really, you didn’t look into that part of the problem at all, just trying to fool me to discuss the democratic principle of putting the “divine law” to a referendum.
That was not what we were discussing, and it was not something which I felt was the main problem with what you said.
Please try to focus on why I’m against your “divine law”, not how to deflect the discussion about valid points.
Paul
Debating “The Culture of Life”
Paul Musgrove at In the Agora has a post where he wants to examine the phrase “The Culture of Life” and at least verbally wants to move down a very slippery slope. He does the typical two step of: “What do you mean by life…What is a good life” follo…