What are basic human rights? Who determines them and who grants them?
What is our moral obligation to others in a political society and ...
How does a society remain virtuous?
The right to life and physical integrity from natural conception until death are the most basic and fundamental rights of the human person, born both of the law of nature and the law of God. These rights belong to man through his human nature, by virtue of his origin and are not determined by the political society into which he is born. According to Aristotle and Aquinas, political societies emerge from the needs and aspirations of human nature itself. A political society is not natural to man in the way that the five senses are natural, but rather in the way that man is inclined toward good - the good of living in a society and the good of moral virtue. Virtue must first be taught in the family and cultivated by the individual. Aristotle believed that anyone completely separated from society was either sub-human or super-human, beast or god.
Families came together to form villages and several villages then united to form societies. These societies primarily allowed each man to specialize in a task and still provide for his family through trade and barter of needed goods rather than supplying them all himself. Political societies are not only formed for better survival, but for the sake of "living well." Through the protection, production, and vast experiences offered in the political society, man is able to move beyond physical and bodily needs and expand to a life of virtue. Aquinas claims that concern for the common good is "better and more divine than the good of the individual."
However, no society exists where every citizen is virtuous and only in societies that have great virtue is the good citizen able to reach his full potential. The common good and the interests of the regime may not always be the same. Take the Nazi regime for instance; the virtuous man may have been deemed a bad citizen because he did not agree with and enforce the interests of the regime. Even his right to life could have been unjustly taken from him by his society because of his refusal to comply with the interests of the regime. In this way the best regimes can become corrupted if justice and reason fall, in the same way that a virtuous man can allow himself to become corrupted if he is not guarded. Thankfully, there are exceptional men and women of virtue such as Maximilian Kolbe in Nazi Germany, who choose justice and virtue despite the corrupt regime and face the ultimate human penalty.
So how do we, as good citizens reach our full potential in corrupt societies?
Concern for the common good is a selfless virtue that can indeed put an individual at odds with the regime. Moral societies desire the best for their citizens, whereas unjust societies desire power over their citizens rather than progress. It is interesting what people across the world consider to be "basic human rights" depending on their experiences. In the poorest countries, having food on the table and a place to rest your head at night is a great blessing. Clean water is not expected to be provided in the household from a running faucet, but rather traveled miles to collect each day. Education is provided in the home and in some cases for a few years publicly before children are needed to help with family income.
As one looks to more affluent societies, more is expected as a "right." Clean water, vast food selection provisions, sanitation, education, health care, housing, electricity, employment, insurance, military and police protection, legal and psychiatric services, child care, transportation/road/travel services, internet access, cell phone services... There is no end to what we believe that we deserve and have a right to, largely at no physical cost to ourselves. Perhaps this is why it is so eye opening to travel to different countries on mission trips and experience the humbling joy of simple necessities to those in poverty. The value of life and family is the only "right" given them by God and is cherished. In contrast, affluent societies posses less thankfulness, more despair, and central atheism.
The economy is meant to serve people and not people serving their economy. There is great dignity in work as a continuing participation in God's creation and man should be fairly rewarded for his work. If an affluent and virtuous society encourages and honors the dignity of work, good citizens are able to support their families and freely give to others in order that they may reach their full potential. However, if work is unproductive and unrewarding, the citizen depends solely on his society to provide for him and is limited by his dependence.
Many good questions may be contemplated at this time as the U.S. debates a socialized health care system. How much must certain citizens be required to pay for the good of other citizens (and non-citizens)? Are human rights different based on the country you live in and the amount of wealth and access to resources your society possesses? As a country that places strong value on material goods and a diminishing value on human life, which supplies those in poverty with free cell phones but struggles with defining and protecting life, are we more virtuous than countries that struggle to provide their poor with basic energy and water services but hold their lives to be sacred? In our society, are we "living well" in lives of virtue?
No comments:
Post a Comment