A little more on dignity vs. personal autonomy

I was just reviewing the Wisconsin Catholic bishop statement on stem cell research from this spring, "Serving All and Sacrificing None" and my mind kept returning to the article "The Stupidity of Dignity," on which I have commented many times already (giving Steven Pinker way too much press, at least among my five loyal blog readers). The bishops bring to bear on the issue of embryonic stem cell research the concept of human dignity as well as arguments of natural law about the value of human reproduction and family to human life.

I first thought about Pinker's belief that personal autonomy is a more important distinction than human dignity. Pinker obviously does not believe that an unborn baby is worthy of the status of a human person because "it" cannot assert personal autonomy. Thinking of my own children, I began to wonder at which stage of human life do we really begin to assert such autonomy? Is my one year old son a human person? He certainly asserts his desires, likes and dislikes, but he would not be able to make a choice about medical treatments. My two-and-a-half year old daughter is even more able to assert her will, but she also is not capable of mature decision making. Is the simple assertion of the will enough to attain the status of personhood? If this is the case, then perhaps Pinker should rethink his belief about unborn babies. Evidence is mounting that babies in the womb show certain preferences that are limited only by their environment. A baby exercises its will at least for desire as soon as its environment allows. On the other hand, if personal autonomy is marked by the capacity for informed consent, which is the definition that Pinker seems to favor, then Pinker and his ilk should support infanticide and even the use of children below the age of reason for experimentation. Pinker calls human dignity too ambiguous a concept on which to base ethical decisions. It seems to me that personal autonomy is even more ambiguous. Whereas the concept of human dignity is applied to every human being, the status of personal autonomy is applied arbitrarily to some and not to others.

The other thought I had while reading the bishops' statement on embryonic stem cells had to do with dignity as a religious concept. While human reason can certainly discern that human beings have unique faculties over those of animals, true human dignity comes from our capacity to love and to be loved, especially by God. Here, Pinker is right. He accurately calls human dignity a religious concept. However, his assumption that just because a concept is religious in origin means that it has no value for "secular" society is narrow minded and wrong headed.

Since the "Enlightenment," the Church has warned against rejection of religiously based concept by secular cultures. We have been told by our culture that religion is a private choice that has no place in the public square. Now we are at the point about which the Church has warned us. We are now being told that human dignity does not matter.

Our faith and our moral teachings protect all human beings against abuse by those in power. The bishops' statement on embryonic stem cell research reiterates this truth beautifully.