Download THE CONCEPT “LIFE” AND ITS OPPOSITE:

THE CONCEPT “LIFE” AND ITS OPPOSITE:
THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS
Jose Mario C. Francisco, SJ
Loyola School of Theology, Ateneo de Manila University
Manila, Philippines
THE CONCEPT “LIFE” AND ITS OPPOSITE : THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS_19
THE CONCEPT“LIFE”AND ITS OPPOSITE:
THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS
Jose Mario C. Francisco, SJ |
Loyola School of Theology, Ateneo de
Manila University Manila, Philippines
Introduction
I have set before you life and death…
Choose life,
then, that you and your descendants may live.”
(Deut 30:19)
This quotation from the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 30, verse 19,
has always struck me when read as part of the first reading (Deut
30, 15-20) during the Feast of St. Ignatius. It expresses in very stark
terms the contrast between blessing and curse, between life and death.
I suppose it was chosen for this feast not only to suggest that the
life of Ignatius and all that developed from it is life-affirming and
life-giving, but also because Ignatian spirituality is anchored on many
such contrasts such as “The Standard of Satan” and “The Standard
of Christ” in the Spiritual Exercises (nos. 136-48) or consolation
20_생명연구 27집
versus desolation in the discernment of spirits (Spex nos. 313-36).
These stark contrasts are similarly found in ordinary discourse―up
and down, left and right, light and darkness. The list could go on.
Though we may not pay too much attention to them and may accept
them simply as a normal part of ordinary discourse, these contrasts
shape not only our way of speaking but also our way of seeing the
world.
This realization forms the fundamental insight behind the thought of
Ferdinand de Saussure and its subsequent systematication in the
many variants of structuralism. As articulated in structuralist thought,
these contrasts or, more technically, binary opposition consists of
related terms or concepts that are opposite and therefore, mutually
exclusive in meaning.
More than just accidents of language and discourse identified by the
linguist Suassure, these binary pairs organize how we see, understand
and act in our world. Each element is defined against what it is not.
For instance, we are hard put to conceive of the 'good' if we do not
understand 'evil'. In Derrida’s words, "unless a distinction can be
made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction. "This
deceptively simple insight provided much impetus in the development
of contemporary thought in the social sciences as well as the
humanities and given birth to the almost catch-all realm of cultural
studies.
As expected, reactions and critiques to the different forms of
THE CONCEPT “LIFE” AND ITS OPPOSITE : THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS_21
structuralisms soon followed with labels like post-structuralism,
deconstruction and even post-post-structuralism. They pointed out
that structuralist thought was wedded to “Western” civilization.
Ideology critique unmasked the often dominant role of one element
over the other, and the consequent legitimation of ethno- or
andro-centrism.
There is no intent here to arbitrate between the varieties of
structuralism on the one hand and the responses to it on the other.
What is intended is simply to call attention to the use of binary
opposites in both ordinary and technical discourse and to set the
platform for this presentation.
We are have been gathered by the Institute of Life and Culture for
this conference on the theme “the Meaning of Life”.
As individuals
and institutions, we are committed to life, promoting a culture of life
and fighting against forces of death. In the intensity of this
commitment, we might just run the risk of taking for granted how we
in fact use “life” and “death” in opposition to each other.
Given such a risk, this presentation interrogates the concepts “life”
and “death” as a binary pair, and how they
function in our moral
discourse. This interrogation involves both theoretical and practical
considerations from the perspective of one from a context where life
is constantly threatened.
In this presentation, the use of the binary pair “life” and “death” is
discussed in the relation to different areas of major ethical concerns
22_생명연구 27집
such as the end or beginning of life. These discussions will not
evaluate particular moral positions but investigate how the binary pair
is employed in moral discernment and reasoning.
On End-of-Life Issues
The binary opposites of life and death prove most useful in
end-of=life issues. As one side of a binary pair, death is defined as
the cessation of whatever is defined as life, and the ethical concerns
center around the causes and circumstances of death.
The cause of the cessation of life may be the death-dealing act of
an individual as in a stabbing or of a nation-state as in the execution
of a criminal or in a war against another nation-state. Here moral
considerations focus on the intention and legitimacy of the act: the
stabbing could be self-defense against a pickpocket, and the death of
a person could be part of what would constitute “a just war”.
Additional considerations could include how proportionate the act is
under the circumstances:the pickpocket turned violent when caught,
and the war casualty could be a civilian hit by a sniper.In the case of
state-imposed death penalty, it could be asked whether the execution
of the criminal based on due process and a fair trial is commensurate
to the crime and indeed “protects the rest of society.” Moreover,
because of new circumstances, there may arise further questions such
THE CONCEPT “LIFE” AND ITS OPPOSITE : THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS_23
as “Can a nuclear war ever be just?” or “Is the so-called war on
terror really a war and therefore subject to the same moral
considerations as conventional warfare?”.
Nevertheless, the binary opposition between life and death serves
moral discernment well. In fact, it sharpens the moral weight of
intention and circumstances in these cases.This applies as well in the
more complex cases of suicide and euthanasia in the form of
deliberate and direct intervention to end life by an act or omission.
Such is deemed morally questionable because of the intent to kill,
even if for “a good cause” as in the case of the self-immolation of
Buddhist monks during the Vietnam war or for “a humane reason” as
in the case of a terminally ill patient.
The binary opposition between life and death, however, begins to
show cracks in other end-of-life issues related to the care of the
terminally infirm, in particular, those involving the prolongation of life.
Here the questions no longer revolve around the prevention of death
but the quality of life that is being prolonged and the effect of that
prolongation on those giving care. For instance in the case of the
terminally ill, the nature and extent of the medical means to prolong
life is weighed in relation to the quality of the person’s vital functions
like consciousness, the ease and availability of the medical means in
the patient’s circumstances (that is, whether they are extraordinary or
not under these circumstances), and the impact of these means on the
overall life of those who carry the burden of care. Even in the more
24_생명연구 27집
specific issues regarding the use of painkillers which could lead to
death and the obligation to provide artificial nutrition and hydration
(ANH), moral judgment is made in the light of how these efforts
actually achieve their ends to ease pain or sustain life.
In these cases then, the binary pair of life and death proves an
inadequate tool for moral discernment, because their opposition is no
longer stark. Life here needs qualifications, even degrees, and the
relation between death and the varying quality of life is no longer
binary. Thus moral discernment depends on elements other than the
stark opposition between life and death.
Here the inadequacy of the binary pair is revealed as questions
about the quality of life of the terminally ill as well as the impact of
the prolongation of life on the quality of life on the family of the ill
begin to be considered.
On Beginning-of-Life Issues
The binary opposition between life and death has also been
employed in the ethical discussion of beginning-of-life issues. Its use
is most evident and helpful in the ethical discussion on abortion. Here
the rejection of interventions that end life is clear, as it brings about
death. This is further reinforced by the distinctions between a
miscarriage where there is no intervention, an induced abortion where
THE CONCEPT “LIFE” AND ITS OPPOSITE : THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS_25
there is direct intervention through different means, and a therapeutic
abortion where the intervention aims to save the life of the mother.
The binary opposition between life and death functions analogously
in the complex and controversial discussion about the beginning of
human life. Though the discussion centers on the transition to life
from non-existence which is not the same as death, the determination
of when human life begins serves to identify a clear boundary when
intervention causes the cessation of human life.
Different views locate this boundary at different points. Some
identify the instance of conception or implantation of the fertilized
ovum; others peg it somewhere along the biological process of
development from single-cell zygote to an embryo. For many Catholic
theologians, this point when human life begins corresponds to the
infusion, whether considered immediate or delayed,
of what is called
the “soul” (anima), and therefore deliberate cessation of life after this
point is morally unacceptable.
The binary opposition between life and death does not function as
effectively in issues related to the facilitation or prevention of the
formation of a human life. In cases of facilitation as in artificial
insemination
or
in-vitro
fertilization
(IVF),
the
only
moral
consideration related to the life-and-death binary opposition focuses on
whether fertilized ova, considered by some as human life, are
discarded and thus their life ended. But beyond this, the more central
moral questions deal with the role of sexual union and procreation
26_생명연구 27집
within marriage.
In the case of preventing the formation of a human life, here
understood as strict contraception and therefore excluding the use of
any abortifacients, the moral considerations transcend the dichotomy
between life and death. Here the formation of life is prevented and no
life is ended. Thus relevant considerations center on the intent and
means in preventing the formation of human life―concerns more
properly related to issues of sexuality.
On Sexuality Issues
The binary opposition between life and death is relevant to moral
considerations of issues related to sexuality. After all, sexuality is
closely linked to reproduction and therefore the formation of life, and
this link remains a fundamental, though not an exclusive, basis for
sexual ethics. Thus specific issues concerning sexuality such as sexual
behavior between men and women or between the same sex must
come to terms with this link.
The link of sexuality to procreation is evident in the sexual union
between a man and a woman, and remains integral to any moral
discussion of sexual relationships between men and women. However,
this biological given can be construed differently. As an end of
marriage together with its unitive purpose, procreation has been
THE CONCEPT “LIFE” AND ITS OPPOSITE : THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS_27
construed normative either in terms of the totality of the bond
between man and woman or of each and every act of sexual
intercourse.
Because of the fundamental status of the link between sexuality and
procreation, moral discussions on contraception are first concerned
about the intent of preventing the formation of human life. There
could be medical contraindications such as the health of the woman or
economic obstacles such as the inability of parents to provide
minimum human living conditions for additional children. These
provide legitimate grounds for avoiding pregnancy.
The question of the means for the avoiding pregnancy follows.
Some means are permanent like a medically indicated hysterectomy,
freely-chosen tubal ligation or irreversible vasectomy; most are
temporary like abstinence from sexual union or the use of a condom
during intercourse. The conflicting views regarding the use of
“natural” or “artificial” means of contraception are founded not only on
what proponents consider to be natural or not but on how sexuality is
construed to be constitutive of the human person and human
relationships.In these moral discussions, the binary opposition between
life and death does not play a key role unless the prevention of
pregnancy is conflated with abortion as some prolife groups do.
Such is also the case in the issue of same sex attraction (SSA) and
its expression in behavior. Moral discussions are not framed in terms
of the life-and-death opposition. They focus on the etiology of same
28_생명연구 27집
sex attraction, whether it is a condition or a choice, whether it is
rooted in nature understood in general or genetic terms or in nurture,
that is, upbringing or social influence.
Furthermore, following which view is taken on its etiology and on
what basis, same sex behavior is judged either morally acceptable or
not. Those who consider same sex attraction as “natural” on whatever
basis generally accept its behavioral expression acceptable and
therefore subject to the same moral standards as heterosexual
behavior, that is, a free, mutual and lasting commitment between
equals. Those for whom same sex attraction is not “natural” hold that
its sexual expression is subject to free choice and therefore can be
rejected as
morally unacceptable.
Such
same
sex
behavior is
unacceptable because it is not procreative, that is, not productive of
children. However, others counter that the generative dimension of
same sex unions is present in other ways such as the creative work
of persons with same sex attraction. In this sense, they claim that
same sex unions are life-giving as well.
On the matter of issues related to sexuality then, concern for life
remains present, but it is no longer defined in contrast to death.
On Social Issues
The binary opposition between life and death does not appear to be
THE CONCEPT “LIFE” AND ITS OPPOSITE : THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS_29
prominent in the general area of social ethics. Significant social issues
such as poverty, injustice and marginalization are surprisingly not
discussed under the rubric of the prolife ethic, because this ethic is
defined in terms of its opposition to death.
These social issues instead are considered under the rubric of
human rights and human dignity. Social forces and structures that
cause
poverty
in all
its
forms
and dimensions
as
well
as
marginalization on whatever basis like race, ethnicity, class or gender
are judged as violating the human rights and dignity of persons and
groups. What is then seen as moral imperatives are efforts at
empowering all and working towards the development of all, more
specifically described as integral human development, that is, the
development of persons and groups in all dimensions constitutive of
their nature.These imperatives of social ethics logically belong to an
ethics of life to the fullest, and yet do not appear so because life has
been limited to what is opposed to death.
The one area of social ethics where the binary opposition of life
and death can be most cogent but is still undeveloped in terms of a
life ethic lies in the general area of environmental ethics. After all, the
environment is, in the most literal sense, the sphere where the forces
of life and death operate. Thus ethical decision and action related to
the environment hinges on how life is sustained. Some interpret this
as complete non-intervention in the environment. Not only is this
“letting nature by itself” a form of intervention, but with the
30_생명연구 27집
competing forces of life and death in the environment, direct human
intervention is at times needed for the forces of life to prevail.
However, this involves a complex moral calculus that takes into
account the empirical structure of ecosystems, the multiple forms of
biodiversity, and human construal of what constitutes integral life.
Though much has been proposed in environmental ethics, little has
been explicitly done in terms of a life ethic. Within such an ethic, the
moral valuation of different life forms and the acceptance of death as
part of the cycle of life could be central considerations.
Concluding Notes
This presentation examined how the binary opposition between life
and death figured in discussions of some of the main issues in the
different domains of ethics. In issues regarding the end and beginning
of life, this conceptual tool proved cogent and useful; but in the
domains of sexual and social ethics, not so despite the reality that
these domains are as much about life as bioethics.
This difference is the result of using the binary opposition between
life and death as the primary tool in ethical thinking. As noted, end-of
and beginning-of life issues are clarified by the stark contrast
between life and death. However, in issues of sexuality, this contrast
is relevant only to the matters related to procreation; considerations
THE CONCEPT “LIFE” AND ITS OPPOSITE : THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS_31
about who the human person is, how constitutive sexuality is to this
personhood,
and
what
familial
structure
best
supports
human
personhood become the more central moral concerns. In a similar way,
discussions in social ethics focus on human dignity, rights and
integral development rather than on the binary opposition between life
and death.
It is not surprising then that advocacy and action in the name of
the promotion of life have been strongest in ethical issues related to
the end and beginning of life and almost silent in social issues.
However, if such advocacy and action are to achieve its goal, they
must engage social issues and other sexual issues under the rubric of
a life ethic.
What this entails is a modification and possibly a rejection of the
binary opposition between life and death as the primary conceptual
tool in moral discourse. The current understanding and use of this
binary opposition gives preeminence to life understood in terms of the
strictly biological and to death as the cessation of this life. It must be
recognized that the concept “life” is an essentially contested concept
and includes the fullness of life longed for by humankind and, for the
Christian, brought by Jesus Christ. Whether death could be similarly
re-conceptualized in moral discourse as the cessation of this fullness
remains to be seen. Nevertheless without this new articulation, prolife
advocacy and action are doomed to fail in truly promoting life and
building a culture of life.
32_생명연구 27집
REFERENCES
Cahill, Lisa Sowle and Farley, Margaret A. (eds.). Embodiment, morality
and medicine, Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1995.
Kavanaugh, John F., Who count as persons? Human identity and the
ethics of killing, Washington. D.C.: Georgetown University
Press, 2001.
Miranda, Dionisio M. Pagkamakabuhay: on the side of life, prologemena
for bioethics from a Filipino-Christian perspective, Manila:
Logos Publications, Inc., 1994
McCormick, Richard A., How brave a new world? dilemmas in
bioethics, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1981.
Sutton, Agneta, Christian bioethics: a guide for the perplexed, London
and New York: T and T Clark, 2008.
Vaughn, Lewis, Bioethics: principles, issues, and cases, New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.