The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
The Positivistic Mentality and the Gospel of Life Print E-mail
By Francis J. Beckwith   
Friday, 21 June 2013

In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II alludes to the philosophy of the human person that has given rise to the culture of death, and with which its proponents seek to replace the sanctity of life ethic: “In the background there is the profound crisis of culture, which generates skepticism in relation to the very foundations of knowledge and ethics, and which makes it increasingly difficult to grasp clearly the meaning of what man is, the meaning of his rights and his duties.”

As the late pontiff points out in another encyclical, Fides et Ratio, the reason for this skepticism is what is often called scientism, the belief that the deliverances of the hard sciences are the only things that we can know apart from mathematics or logic. Calling this “the positivistic mentality,” since its proponents maintain that meaning and purpose are posited or imposed by our minds on an ultimately purposeless and purely material universe, John Paul notes that when it “took hold,” it “not only abandoned the Christian vision of the world,” it “more especially rejected every appeal to a metaphysical or moral vision.”

What he means by this is that once a society embraces scientism, or at least its spirit, certain beliefs can no longer be considered live options. For example, if purpose and meaning cannot be derived from the natural world, including human nature, but only imposed on it by us, then there are no actual goods to which a human being is ordered. Thus, we can only know what is good for the individual person by knowing his desires, that is, what he believes are in his interests. The positivistic mentality rules out the possibility that a person’s understanding of his own interests could be mistaken relative to some objective standard, or that a human being may be entitled to certain goods even if he has no actual desires for them.

This is why there are many who believe that a political community that denies a citizen the right to suicide violates the right of that citizen. If there are no basic objective goods to which a human being is ordered, such as the good of life, and if what is good is merely what the individual desires (as long as the fulfillment of his desires does not impede the desires of a similarly situated citizen), then there can be no principled grounds by which a society can reject the right to suicide, given the positivistic mentality. For this reason, as John Paul notes, such a society “recognizes as a subject of rights only the person who enjoys full or at least incipient autonomy.”

This is why the preborn, and increasingly, the newborn, are thought by many, especially among the intelligentsia, to be outside the scope of the moral community. Recently, in the Journal of Medical Ethics,  philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva presented this perspective with stunning candor. In an article entitled, “After Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?,” they argue, among other things, that both the preborn and the newborn, though human beings, are not persons, and thus lack moral status.

What they mean by “person” is “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” That is, if a human being is not presently able to value his own life – as in the cases of preborns, newborns, and those in persistent vegetative states or suffering from degenerative neurological conditions – his life has no objective value.       

As the title of their article suggests, the authors want to provide a defense of infanticide, or what they euphemistically call “after birth abortion.” They give it that name because of what they think is a medical problem that abortion is presently not able to remedy: the birth of a handicapped or defective newborn that would have likely been aborted prenatally if its mother had known of the child’s abnormality.

Because many abortions in fact occur precisely because the mother is made aware of such a diagnosis, and the newborn is no more a person than the preborn, Giubilini and Minerva argue that it is unjust to deny these parents an opportunity to rid themselves of a burden they could have legally eliminated only weeks earlier.

Consequently, if a parent believes her child, preborn or newborn, is too much of a burden to her, her society, her family, her other children, or even to her economic well being, then when the law allows her to terminate the child’s life, the child is not wronged.

What we have here is an illustration of a civil society which, in the words of John Paul II, “is no longer the `common home’ where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant state, which arrogates itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenseless members. . .in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part.”

Without scientism, or what John Paul II called “the positivistic mentality,” it is unlikely that the culture of death would have ever gained traction in many of our societies. Without first undercutting the basis for the sanctity of human life – equal dignity and respect grounded in a human nature that we all share and which is ordered toward certain goods or perfections – the ideas propagated by scholars like Giubilini and Minerva would rarely if ever be seriously entertained.


            Robert Royal, Cdl. Raymond L. Burke, and Francis Beckwith at the Vatican

Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies at Baylor University. He has published replies to Guibilini and Minerva both here and here. This column is excerpted and adapted from comments made by the author on June 15, 2013 at the Pontificia Università Urbaniana (Rome) as part of the conference, The Gospel of Life and the New Evangelization.
 
 
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (5)Add Comment
0
...
written by Ib, June 21, 2013
Yes, I remember reading those words of Blessed John Paul II about the tyrant state back in the seminary when "Evangelium Vitae" was first promulgated in 1995. The moral theology professors all demurred from talking about it (including one very notorious visiting prof from Boston College). See, they had all been proportionalists and were still smarting from "Veritatis Splendor" in 1993. All but one is now retired, but the damage their generation did to Roman Catholic moral theology will take decades to repair. We can only thank God, then thank him again, for the titanic work that blessed John Paul II did in those letters.

But if things have improved somewhat in the Roman Church, things have gotten far worse in the broader society. I pray that Pope Francis will have the courage to follow in John Paul II's footsteps!
0
...
written by Manfred, June 21, 2013
Thank you for a fine article, Prof. Beckwith. I find it well worthwhile to read what the various Popes and scholars have said on the subject of abortion. Unfortunately, they are irrelevant. Do you know why Nancy Pelosi is pro abortion? She recently explained it to a very bright reporter of the Wall Street Journal. It seems that years ago when she was a practicing Catholic, i.e., not contracepting, she explained to the reporter that when she came home from the hospital with her fifth child, her oldest was six years old. She has made this comment before. And because Pelosi, Biden, Sebelius, the Cuomos et al are all social justice catholics (sic), they will do anything to assist the poor in any way, including giving Kermit Gosnell's abortuary a pass. So the conversation is between the intellectual world and the practical world, and the intellectual world cannot understand why it keeps losing the debate. There are very few true Catholics alive today. The "cafeteria Catholic" is the norm. Economics plays a large role in affecting peoples' decisions.
0
...
written by Deacon Ed Peitler, June 21, 2013
Manfred writes: "Economics plays a large role in affecting peoples' decisions." I would disagree by saying that self-will run riot, rather than doing God's will, plays the largest role in most people's lives these days - with Catholics right in the mix with the best of the pagans.
0
...
written by Seanachie, June 21, 2013
Another example of "control the language, control the argument". While Beckwith cordially refers to the authors of the article above as "philosophers", it seems to me that they are hardly more than con artists attempting to rationalize and market infanticide as "after birth abortion". Other con artists refer to infanticide as "reproductive rights", "women's choice", etc. More or less makes baby killing sound harmless, even acceptable, to the morally challenged.
0
...
written by Michael Paterson-Seymour, June 22, 2013
I fancy it all goes back to the dualism of Descartes. The world is made up of matter (extended substance) and mind (thinking substance). The nascent sciences welcomed it, for it meant that physical phenomena could only be described in physical, mechanical terms. What is extended can be measured and these measurements can be correlated in differential equations, the predictive value of which can be tested. Philosophers from Berkeley to Hume to Kant to the younger Wittgenstein welcomed it, for it meant that semantics, ethics and aesthetics could be wholly detached from the material world – The separation of fact and value was complete.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner