A backlash to religion has led to declining respect for ethical monotheism, and the rise of Utilitarian, self-regarding ethics based on personal rights. Secularists and humanists espouse the belief that we do not need morals and values from religion, rather it is common knowledge, natural, for us to care for others. But, I don’t see the evidence. History has shown us that we are not compassionate by nature much to their chagrin. Secularism reached a nadir in the 20th century. It was the most barbaric century in human history. Think Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Ill, Rwanda and Bosnia. Think of the millions upon millions of people murdered because they did not fit the definition of human for the Fatherland, the Motherland, or the despot of the day. People were displaced, and starved. The physically and mentally disabled and the elderly were viewed as burdens to the society and the future good of the country. All were murdered at the whim of the leader.
This ethic of intrinsic value and human dignity is not solely “religious.” Immanuel Kant, a secular ethicist from the 19th century came to the same conclusions. Kantian ethics are quoted by many secular bio-ethicists to condone abortion and assisted-suicide. They point to Kant’s doctrine of the categorical imperative and Universalization. Bottom line, if an act is good for one, it is good for all. So, if abortion is good for one woman and if assisted suicide is good for one person then they are good for all; no restraints or restrictions. But Kant clearly states in his treatises that abortion and suicide go against the dignity of the human being. Morally, he wrote that we are obligated to live, to face tragedy, that abortion and suicide if made into universal categorical imperatives would lead to self-destruction.
We now have unfettered abortion which makes it possible for women and families to abort female fetuses. Did anyone think that this would happen when abortion became universally available? How can we justify opening up the door to euthanasia with restraints and restrictions and believe that it won’t expand to the point that the elderly and the disabled might feel coerced into ending their lives? What kind of restraints can you put into place to prevent that or even keep track of that? Women complained when they had to speak to doctors before obtaining abortions. So, the restrictions were removed. When people begin to resent having to ask permission to kill themselves, why should their rights be denied? What hubris to think that we can guarantee that we won’t go down the same road with assisted suicide as we have gone with abortion rights.
We spend a great deal of time talking about our right to die and our right to abort. We are talking about ways of disposing of life, as if it were trash. Why do we not talk about ways to make all life worth living? Why do we spend time on devising ways to end life due to pain or the fear of pain rather than putting all of our resources toward caring for those in pain? Why do we only talk about the rights of women when we talk about abortion, but never the rights of the father, or the responsibilities of both of them in the consensual relationship that led to the pregnancy? Do we really want to live in a society that is based on personal rights, grandiose infantile delusions of entitlement? Or do we want to maintain an ethic that brought us to this place; an ethic that pulled us away from selfishness and tribalism?
Ethical monotheism-the Judeo-Christian ethic is not fundamentalism. It is not an ethic meant to take away rights. It is an ethic that demands that we balance rights with responsibilities. It is an ethic that asks us to incorporate the needs of others, and to take care of those who cannot or will not take care of themselves. It asks of us to always respect the dignity of the human being and the human soul. It asks of us that we prioritize living life with dignity. Whether it is the beginning of life or the end of life, we can always pull the plug, we can’t put it back.
