The Reduction of Personhood
Looking at the Casey abortion decision today, we see this quote: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” And here it is: humans have the ability to think like a god. This state of mind (that individuals are responsible to themselves first, inherently possessing the constructive ability and the right to pursue freedom and its ensuring contracts) is, in practice, a politicized temptation to the exercise of a calculated, centralizing compulsion, often terrible, sometimes not. Personhood is reduced to subjectivity, ripe for manipulation by impersonal institutions and processes following their own cold logic. According to Rein Staal, “the aspirations that had inspired the founders of modern thought – the conquest of nature through science, indeed the conquest of human nature through science and the emancipation of power from moral restraint – had been achieved beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, and they had turned to ashes before that success could be enjoyed.” One enemy is the utilitarianism of many Enlightenment figures, Bentham, Mill, and Rousseau first among them. Their ideals were the underpinning of utopian, ideological visions “left” and “right,” including the libertarianism and socialism strongly present in the currents of Twentieth Century American political discourse. To escape the structures of liberalism and “reconnect” with an older, pre-Enlightenment Western tradition is to avoid the scheming trample of long-developing culture and tradition, the asymmetrically strange and odd, the nonconformist, and the mysteriously religious. But is this possible? Utilitarianism – lurking in the universalizing, rationalist, secular equality of the Enlightenment, in the ideological fever of the French Revolution, and in the elevation of unmoored “rights” – could perhaps be countered by such a search for meaning. The things true for all people at all times, transcending matter and time, come through interpretation mediated by historical experience. From the understanding that man was made in the image of a Person invisible to us now, ethical principles emerge that facilitate humans living in community so that we will not be as the beasts. This order of a society, whatever its modern pretenses, can shine through to grant ethical meaning to existence. Such permanent things are the measure of true societal progress. Upholding these produce higher social goods than utility: norms of courage, duty, justice, integrity, charity, and familial help – the standard for judging persons and institutions. The appreciation of norms are acquired in the outgrowth of organic community unorganized by the mechanisms of the state, beginning with family and extending to the small spheres of community such as church and school. Accumulated experience is the teacher of life. We must search for the good things, which is the end and the purpose of our life, and then pass them forward.
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
It seems to me you have taken the quote out of context. Here it is included with the sentences that precede and follow it:
I would say they are interpreting the concept of liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment, speaking as representatives of the American government entrusted with interpreting that constitution. I don’t think they are speaking philosophically about the ultimate meaning of human freedom. They are speaking about the freedom enjoyed by, and guaranteed to, the people of the United States, who have the constitutional right the be free to arrive at their own personal definitions of human freedom.
From the understanding that man was made in the image of a Person invisible to us now, ethical principles emerge that facilitate humans living in community so that we will not be as the beasts.
I understand the Constitution to give each person the right to decide for himself or herself if humans were created in the image of God, or evolved through random mutation and natural selection, or whether the universe goes in endless cycles of creation and destruction (Hindus), or whether the question of human origins is of little interest (Buddhists).
First principles accommodate and inform several U.S. Constitutional concepts of liberty, including my own (and yes I realize the Constitution can be classified as an Enlightenment document), which in my non-expert rendering does not include the right to terminate a pregnancy. First, look at the Fourtheenth Amendment:
The proper place to debate “choices central to personal dignity and autonomy” is in the very place where my concepts, and opposing concepts, can be decided without totalitarian imposition: the public square. The majority’s concept of liberty is overly expansive, and the context does not justify it.
I would say they are interpreting the concept of liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment, speaking as representatives of the American government entrusted with interpreting that constitution.
Not possible with their definition of liberty as demonstrated in the original quote and throughout the decision. What they have done is stifle debate and action necessary to be “free to arrive at personal definitions,” as represented by their elected officials.
I understand the Constitution to give each person the right to decide for himself or herself if humans were created in the image of God, or evolved through random mutation and natural selection, or whether the universe goes in endless cycles of creation and destruction (Hindus), or whether the question of human origins is of little interest (Buddhists).
Unrelated. The point related to your comment is that in the name of this definition of liberty (for the end of individual utility) they have choked the ability of each person to influence, through democracy, what liberty means. If those in my community, for example, came to agree with me in this post – thus restricting or outlawing abortion – the courts would step in immediately (as we have seen many times since 1973). This is destructive on many levels, including for little considered reasons as organic community.
Good thoughts, though I have a few comments since I am researching my thesis in the area of the historical reduction of personhood to subjectivity in the French and German tradition and the reduction of personhood to individuality in the British and Scottish traditions.
First, Rousseau was not a utilitarian. In fact, he predated utilitarianism and contributed more directly to Romanticism and the German Enlightenment.
Second, Mill held no illusions of utopianism. In fact, he eschewed the earliest manifestation of socilaist, utopian ideology in Britain.
Personhood is reduced to subjectivity, ripe for manipulation by impersonal institutions and processes following their own cold logic.
This reduction is the wellspring of the Western liberal tradition which flows through figures like Locke and Hume. But subjectivity is not itself the problem. German thinkers such as Kant, Fichte, and Hegel championed subjectivity without the attendant reductions to cold logic. It was the Scottish Enlightenment that achieves the reduction of which you speak, which is not a reduction to subjectivity, but the reduction of the person to an atomistic individual that is isolated and self-willing, capable of determining his/her own actions and goods without external interference from society or politics. This catch-word “liberty” expressed this reality of the individual. Locke is the first to abandon the notion of a persistent self-identity in persons, and David Hume and Adam Smith, with their sentiment-based morality, eliminated any semblance of personhood from both ethics and political theory, substituting instead the notion of the individual. Mill, Bentham, and even Burke contribute to this reduction, grounding in this individual a set grouping of “rights.” Rights in the liberal and conservative movements in Anglo-American thought become the stand-in for the dignity and value of personhood from the Augstinian-Thomist tradition. It is little surprise that this trajectory led to the de-personalizing of persons in law, for the seeming violation of rights becomes the chief societal crime. Abortion is an exemplary case of this wherein the fetus, with or without rights, infringes upon the rights of the woman. Even if “rights” are given to the fetus, how does one resolve the tension between the fetus’ rights and those of the woman. In the end, the independent, self-sufficient individual (i.e., the woman) wins out on the dependent, parasitic individual (i.e., the fetus).
Indeed, the preoccupation with liberty in the Anglo-American political tradition is the root of the moral malaise in our times.
Our preoccupation is not with liberty, but equality.
Abortion is necessary because it makes women equal to men.
That is, abortion is justified by “choice” – not motivated by choice.
“Policraticus Says:
February 11, 2009 at 8:56 pm”
This. Very well done Poli.
Especially, “Rights in the liberal and conservative movements in Anglo-American thought become the stand-in for the dignity and value of personhood from the Augstinian-Thomist tradition.”
I would agree with the great criticism of Descartes, that he decimated the ability to access the classic language of philosophy.
Our preoccupation is not with liberty, but equality.
Abortion is necessary because it makes women equal to men.
Actually, one of the dividing lines between the liberal democratic paradigm and socialism is that between emphasis on political liberty and emphasis on economic equality. Political liberty includes within it the notion of equality, cashed out in terms of rights. Economic equality includes notion that wealth is common possession. The liberal paradigm takes political liberty to be the basis of social order, whereas socialism takes economic equality to be the foundation. So the sort of “equality” you are referencing is actually under the umbrella of political liberty. Hence, equality in the Ango-American tradition refers to rights and opportunities, not to lifestyles and wealth.
That is, abortion is justified by “choice” – not motivated by choice.
The choice to terminate that which infringes upon the rights of the woman.
P. – I knew when typing that “utility” and “subjective” were being used too awkwardly but couldn’t think of anything else in the moment. Thanks for your comment.
It was too sloppy to place Rousseau’s emotionalist meanderings with Mill and Bentham, but they do share a similar hope: in the good of the human striving for pleasure, it is possible to rationally think things through – accumulated wisdom is silly and unnecessary. Our private rationality, in other words, makes a transcendent, ultimate ethic silly and unnecessary. Motives are not love and communion, ultimately resting in God, but …. something like utility.
Abortion is necessary because it makes women equal to men.
Women aren’t equal to men?
Some people feel that one of the motives of those who are anti-abortion is to keep women in their place. Maybe it’s true.
David,
That is an uncharitable and unconstructive comment. If you are uncertain of a meaning – yours here, as opposed to, say, “The ability to terminate a pregnancy at will allows women fuller control over their bodies, making them the equal to men, who do not get pregnant” – then inquire about meaning.
There is little reason to jump on Zach when his statement can easily be read as something other than an assumption of unequal moral worth. Without clarification if you deem it necessary, nothing constructive is added by such a comment.
That is an uncharitable and unconstructive comment.
Jonathan,
It was about as carefully crafted a message as something that brief could be. I usually address my messages specifically to an individual, but I didn’t address this one to Zach. I just quoted his statement. I used a rhetorical question instead of interpreting his comment. I made no mention of unequal moral worth. I didn’t accuse him or any abortion opponent of wanting to “keep women in their place.” I merely noted that some people believe that is one of the motives of the the anti-abortion movement, and said maybe it’s true.
It seemed to me his message did imply, in talking about liberty and equality, that abortion was an attempt to make women equal to men, and that women should not be equal to men.
So I feel I did not “jump on Zach,” but wrote a fairly restrained comment –addressing the statement and not the person — to a remark that implied women were not equal to men. If I do jump on something, I try to make it an idea rather than a person. But you have written a personal message to me accusing me of being uncharitable and unconstructive.
However, I will keep what you said in mind in the future and see what I can do to be more charitable and constructive, since undoubtedly I have plenty of room for improvement.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
While taking nothing away from the moral arguement against abortion, the above doesn’t seem to help the Constitutional argument.
Scalia directly addressed the concept of “person” in the Fourteenth Amendment in his appearance on 60 Minutes last year:
It is not clear to me whether those who believe abortion must be outlawed believe the unborn must be legally declared persons or whether laws prohibiting abortion must be passed against abortion without stating any rationale. But it seems to me if the unborn are to be recognized as persons under the law, that would require a constitutional amendment to define what “person” means in the constitution.
All persons born or naturalized in the US … are citizens thereof.
Paraphrasing of course. This passage does not necessarily require that one be born before being a person. It only requires that one be born before being a citizen. In other words, one could be a person, not yet born in the US, and therefore not yet a citizen (and possibly never if said person is born outside the us). To put it another way, “all automobiles delivered in the US are subject to import tax” That does not imply an automobile needs to be delivered into the US before it is an automobile.
Otherwise, taking that same language (persons born or naturalized) would imply that one is not a person until naturalized in the US. I am certain that is not what is meant. At worst, the wording is neutral on the Constitutional issue of whether an unborn person is a person under the Constitution.
Scalia is simply wrong. Corporations are not walking around persons, and yet certain Constitutional protections have been afforded to them.
It is really nice to see people use philosophy in a way that is at once rigorous and technical, and relevant and meaningful. Cheers to all!
By the way, I was referring to the nice exchange begun by Poli’s response.
Scalia is simply wrong. Corporations are not walking around persons, and yet certain Constitutional protections have been afforded to them.
Scalia is specifically referring to the use of the words person and persons in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it seems clear to me that they apply to human beings, not legal persons such as corporations.
FWIW, I am rather a strict constructionist on the Constitution. It should be interpreted and followed generally pursuant to the plain letter and plain intended spirit, as understood in its era (or its amendments era).
If we want to change the Constitution, or invest it with some level of new meaning, the mechanisms are in place to do just that.
And those matters not clearly dealt with, or clearly intended to be dealt with, within the plain intended spirit?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
I’m all for overturning Roe v Wade, ending abortion, etc, but under our system abortion should probably be a states’ rights issue.
If great tension arises because of differing definitions of personhood, from state to state, there may come a need for a — SHOCK– Constitutional Amendment to clearly settle the matter.
If great tension arises because of differing definitions of personhood, from state to state, there may come a need for a — SHOCK– Constitutional Amendment to clearly settle the matter.
Who is to say any state will prohibit abortion on the grounds that an unborn child is a human being with the same rights as “post-born” human beings? That opens a can of worms as to what other rights do the unborn have. Can they inherit? Can a pregnant woman be charged with child abuse for not taking care of her health? Is a pregnant woman who drinks alcohol providing it to minors?
Surely those who want to prohibit abortion will simply prohibit abortion without granting some new legal status to the unborn. When abortion was illegal in most states prior to Row v Wade, I don’t believe it was on the grounds that an abortion was the killing of a human being. Why would it be the case if Roe is overturned and the states may criminalize abortion again?
As I understand it, the definition of person which prevails today is from common law and is basically “a human being who has been born and is alive.” That is certainly broad enough to cover all those who some claim are on the slippery slope because of abortion (the sick, elderly, and disabled).
I don’t think there will ever be a need for the supreme court to define a person. After all, what the repeal of Roe would do is return this issue to the states. Every state would be free to make its own determinations, with abortions illegal in some and legal in others. If Roe were overturned, it seems to be it would be madness to rope the supreme court back into the issue by asking it for a definition of a person. What if its definition was that personhood began at the beginning of the third trimester?
David,
I’m not quite sure where you perceive my argument as suggesting that the Supreme Court should be involved in the business of defining personhood. To be clear, I do not believe that is the business of the Supreme Court (unless some Constitutional Amendment or specific Act of Congress gave it such authority).
My argument is for a clear reading of the tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The 13th and 14th amendment simply should not apply, since their clear intent in no way relates to abortion. Therefore, it should be a states’ issue.
HOWEVER, the core question that will ultimately have to be dealt with is indeed: What is the legal status of the unborn?
The equal protections clause does not apply to corporations? That would be news to many lawyers, legal scholars and professors. Then why do courts constantly hold that corporate persons are to be treated equally with individuals in a lawsuit? That they are entitled to the same treatment under the law as a natural person? That they are entitled to assert the same legal defenses available to simialrly situated individuals?
The equal protections clause does not apply to corporations? That would be news to many lawyers, legal scholars and professors.
I had failed to read all of Wikipedia! The Fourteenth Amendment does apply to “legal persons” such as corporations.
However, I am betting if you got into an argument with Antonin Scalia over whether “person” in the Fourteenth Amendment applied to the unborn, he would win. And of course he is not the only person on the supreme court. All that needs to be done is to convince five of them that from the moment of conception, equal protection of the law applies, and the battle would probably be won. I say “probably,” because there are arguments that abortion could remain legal even if it is granted that a fetus is a person with rights.
c matt,
Because Big Business runs this country.
LCB,
Apologies. I actually did misread your message and answered as if you had said the question could be settled by the Supreme Court, when actually you said by an amendment to the constitution. There is a very loud amusement park right in front of my present lodgings. (Not really, but it is a quote from Pale Fire that I always remember.)
All this philosophical talk is very impressive (not kidding!), and yet it seems to sketch out mostly a battle of ideas whereas the battle over abortion, which we seems to be focusing on, is a battle not of pure ideas but of people using ideas to defend their positions–positions arrived at not wholly out of logic or a quest for the truth but mostly out of history (personal history, religious history, social history, etc.)
So when the Church says a fertilized egg is a human person, a woman with a certain experience of the Church, and/or a certain analysis thereof, might hear something different, like, “A woman is primarily a baby maker who should do as the men in authority say.”
Usually, no amount of argument will bring this kind of clash to a resolution because the two sides have entirely different frames of reference and also–perhaps more importantly–they regard each other as enemies.
The science versus religion conflict is the same sort of deal–almost totally conditioned by history. Is the idea of God truly antithetical in thought or in logic, or in any way, to the pursuit of empirical knowledge? If we think it is so, it is just because people have been fighting over it for so long, but the fight is not destiny, it is history.
Usually, no amount of argument will bring this kind of clash to a resolution because the two sides have entirely different frames of reference and also–perhaps more importantly–they regard each other as enemies.
David,
I am quoting myself practically verbatim from over on dotCommonweal, but this is a very relevant paragraph, so why not (as we say in the publishing business) repurpose the content? I am reading How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer at the moment, and there is some fascinating material about making moral decisions. Generally, the decisions come first, on a visceral level, and the reasons come later. The moral decision isn’t made on the basis of reasoning. It is made on the basis of feelings and emotions, and the reasoning comes afterward, to justify the gut feeling. He discusses psychopaths, who have no gut reactions to the things that make most of us cringe (depictions of people being frightened or hurt, and so on) and quotes Chesterton, “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. He is the man who has lost everything except his reason.” [End of self-quote]
I think our attitudes toward abortion may come from a gut reaction to the issues. All the arguing in the world won’t change most people’s opinions. If either side wants to make progress in promoting its point of view, they may have to set all the moral arguments aside and see what actually causes people to take one side or the other. I think it may have something to do with empathy. Many pro-life people (or so it appears to me) seem to be thinking, on some level, “What if I were the fetus of a woman seeking an abortion? What if I were the victim of an abortion? What if that abortion technique were used on me?” Other people, perfectly capable of great empathy, don’t empathize at all with an unborn baby, particularly one in the very early stages of pregnancy. And the debate over stem-cell research is minimal and without passion because nobody empathizes with a fertilized egg. The empathy hypothesis is just a personal conjecture, but I think there is very good reason to believe that most people cannot be persuaded to change their opinion about the morality of abortion (or much of anything else) by rational arguments.
No worries David, mis-seeing 1 or 2 little articles of my post really changes its whole meaning. I should have been more concrete and specific.
As for what is needed to end abortion? Well, I must blame Bush and the GOP. The Constitution is quite clear on what Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary may and may not do.
A simple majority measure, declaring that life begins at conception for all laws, that abortion henceforth shall be illegal, and (here is the key) that this measure is not subject to judicial review…. would have been sufficient to end abortion in this country.
Congress decides what the courts may or may not review.
Generally, the decisions come first, on a visceral level, and the reasons come later.
I’m not sure a moral theory of “we’re just animals who rationalize our decisions after the fact” is particularly compatible with the Faith.
Generally decisions or particular acts spring from vice and virtue, not from dispassionate discursive reason in the moment of action. But discursive reason – along with many other things, such as prayer and fasting – cultivates virtue, minimizes vice, and prepares us for difficult decisions by having reasoned them through ahead of time.