EWTN ON LOCATION THREE PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN LIFE – Dr. John Haldane

EWTN ON LOCATION THREE PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN LIFE – Dr. John Haldane


EWTN goes on location to the Franciscan
University of Steubenville today Institute of bioethics at
Franciscan University presents doctor John Holding as he presents three perspectives on human life. So my title is three perspectives on human life and in fact I’m going to talk about 3
sets of three perspectives and not gonna 9
perspectives on the way the time I finish in the fine at this
time I’m even push that up to 12 Forza perspectives but some of these
perspectives merge or at least overlap I’m and I will I’ll indicate as and when that prospect is before us so let me start first of
all just by saying what the what these perspectives that I want to
explore our and then on come back and haunt go
through them with degree of care the first set of perspectives and reason really is
the main prospectuses which i’m concerned. I’m going to call the perspective from
above the perspective from below and the perspective from within so
naturally the dominance that mind would be concerned with the
perspective from above perspective from below the perspective from within and I’ll explain what I mean by shortly the next means all set to
perspectives will be the perspective from morality the perspective from selfhood and the
perspective from science asserts that will be the perspective have the agent the perspective on the
action and perspective on the outcome and then finally the perspective from
prudence perspective from autonomy and the
perspective from concern I know there’s a lot to take in but
basically the dominant say it to have in mind as one calling
the perspective from above the perspective from below and the
perspective from what they did now I think the easiest way to
illustrate what I have in mind I’m is by imagining ourselves back into say
the 13th century and thinking about the human condition human life these oh by the way
perspectives on human life thinking about or wall these three
perspectives might represent or another way to put in that is where the zone
perspectives chrome to uneducated thirteenth century thinker not necessarily in systematic think but
uneducated thoughtful person I’m what these %uh perspectives on and
what they reveal about human life from those positions so the perspective from above so far as the Western European in the
13th century is concerned is a perspective from the viewpoint golson also perspective that that person
things that they themselves dole’s but the as we’re live their lives conscious a all the fall that there is a viewpoint all their
lives as you point taken by gold and that’s the perspective
from above I’ll in the pre-christian pagan world
there was also a counterpart that not the perspective all that gold’s in
the sense that Greek or Roman gods but really the perspective of the cosmos
so stoic philosophers for example would be very interested in the perspective
from above lunch called but that would be the
perspective on humanity when human life human condition human foibles and so on from the point
of view of the cosmos and some the Stoics not all but some
release doing so because most is the kind of mind perspective into it it had a few were the the time we get to our people
Western Europeans as the I Middle Ages the perspective about was
the perspective the divine perspective and the divine
perspective on human life human condition in that
period is essentially the perspective all a problem solver on now that notion of sovereignty kingship if you like and the
providential -ism that in this case goes with it doesn’t
always goes kingship his case went with it and is something
that was fashioned over the centuries outsole really the
Abrahamic covenant the jewish sense %uh sold gold solve your way and the relationship the Abrahamic covenant you know I should you
laurin you will be my people home now the Jews the Queen’s to Christianity that sends love called
as sold Lord who would provide for his people but whereas for the Jews the people with him with israel from
Christianity they were the people of crimes obviously but transcended the distinction in June and
so on but this so this is really a a kind of
developed out with judy is my new gun laws well then with the idea %uh the view from above which is the
divine who upon the human condition and is that you all a providential
solver and and scene from that point if you are my
gym from that point of view jobs human beings com doctored strictly
wrote that point of view wow how human beings emerge are on some
jeans there’s something so so over and there
will be additional fees and so on but the divine court stands above them and gold as a judge and got me find the
fabled Mitchell maps in one thing than others
or but the conception the human condition from the perspective above is perspective on some jeans who are
dependent entirely on the benign be Providence all this
over the perspective from below old for this
educated person time imagining is provided by the natural philosophy of
the times down the financial policy I really mean the natural sciences the
times and I chose my period is one in which in
the West there was a rediscovery really a
barstool in natural science so this perspective is broadly speaking
our city in about the natural order and it believes
in the hierarchy a living forms I’m it believes as Aristotle didn’t
quite understand we don’t in Fig species those we lucien species
act in this but that issues in a sense not bad well we come aboard the bus was not
important at this point so they believe into a hierarchy of
species and these various species are organized
in this hierarchy according to the scheme provided by are spoken the animal so we have a more level purely Vegeta beings plans I’m and then we have scented beings which
flight plan sixteens man’s with environmentally jus but also move themselves and sense common sense perception and then above
that we have rational animals these rationals say like vegetation that reproduces the taken
money from their environment like the animals and we’re on but I might be animals they have the
capacity of deliberation choice and elections or so the view from below all as provided
by our city in natural science gives mine thirteenth century education the plate person a view all himself or herself as a rational animal as be embedded in nature but as it were as representing the
people the natural order and they can see themselves as social
built up a little nature but is it worth
transcending the gym because they’re perfected as an imagined
all the know the first thing to note is that
these two perspectives the perspective from above the spectrum from below are
easily harmonize double this this view human beings as some
diesel providential sovereign and as you human
beings as rational animals transcending me a matter but uses and so
on the ISM fairly easily reconcilable with
green chile subjects um another view from within is if you like resources existential
lived experience of what it is to be human being and anybody who reflects on what it is
to be human being as we know from the writings that period in pretty much
every period has a sense of the human is impressed by
two things I think one is on one hand the human capacity for
intelligent for and deliberate action action in the good and also on is impressed by the fact
that human stupidity and current fallibility and thalia and
wrongdoing and so on I’m so the view from within as a view of
human beings as in some states genuinely special urs they are city you in natural lost it all
when we were and as the Mr good day crucially
something story told they were but also as flawed infallible and broken in various ways and women and
so on and that can be explained in part from below
the by the imperfection on the matter with
me and two bx explain from above by the
breach in the Abrahamic covenant breach the contract another seen civilians Syrian story the original adaptation and then
subsequently the Abrahamic covenant and so they could
see themselves as balls were possessed a reason and a moral consciousness but also
burdened by said infallibility in brokenness so the point
is that the perspectives from above from blowing
from within to the educated thirteen century figure
are usually reconcilable and indeed one seems to confirm the
other so mutually support now the first thing to be said is that sort of situation for the most
part we inhabit deeply confused intellectually confused
culture world I’m not not talking about United
States as against Britain or Britain is against
France whatever that may be what I mean is the intellectual you all the educated people in the Western world and those other parts of the world influenced by
the words is profoundly fragmented and confuse be but many people in many educated people
in Western culture that simply don’t know if there is a
view from above because they don’t think because Moses minded in Minnesota way and increasingly don’t they don’t think
there is a go and even those who think there is a gold
are somewhat uncomfortable with the picture gold as assault or and it was very natural for the Jews and for Christians two-for-one
concertgoers the divine sold room a models on the bases all tribal and other forms of social
leadership which you had something like this all I mean kingship for those enjoy the for
the social anthropology is a field study here but kingship has a is a climb kingship and kinship are classy terms of and the political analysis and most
social and oppose will tell you that in communities you
will find both can shed and kingship so the notion kingship
comes very naturally to the human mind out to tribal leadership um and so is very a natural thing for
people to model their understanding gold on the basis
love the idea love a providential tribal leader King so now we tend not to think about relations with
one another in that way the rise of democracy obviously a kind of broader egalitarianism not an economic
egalitarianism but the document equal worth be I think these people slightly ill
with the idea that goes in gaza solver that that’s the right way
to think about it or something that happened in court
seems is also slightly interesting with think others may be wrong but I’m just
pointing out the difficulties that modern educated people have in
trying to form a few the human condition from a ball as I say
either the think there is no above which to you would there’s nobody there
as it were my because most small gold and they’ve
got is the got isn’t the solver whatever goes
relationship is to humanity is not working and some jeans so that’s problematic the view from below has become
increasingly problematic because that picture of a well-ordered natural natural world in which things are
structured by these fixed majors and so on I’m first of all you suffered a tremendous
blow be with the origin species but and the particular position humanity in all of this suffered a
further blow with the descend man the idea common ancestry the idea that human beings Dr related to
other parts of nature but no in the way that Aristotle for that
because they have the were grown out with the same and wheelbase com ancestry humankind home with me i’m looking the more generally
and of course that the third sort advanced that
picture and the undermining traditional picture came with the development in the 20th
century Ginny’s because genetics seems that a comfy notable characterizations species
so are sitting in taxonomy is of animal kinds intensive basically their
appearance and what we do from on you miss you divide flying things from those things live on the ground in those
things with MC and so on well the idea that a common ancestry
festival on settles idea that there are things
that belong naturally in one place wrong number but
genetics further so there’s that because due to the
capacity Asians tend not to coincide with things that will
classifications so you know that genotype taxonomies the usual very
different picture love the natural world to the classical tax on them to go take some so the
picture from below both in the the begins to emerge is very
confused one human beings just don’t seem special um certainly if they are special
inspections doesn’t look at them be captured by Natural Science some natural sciences undermine the
claims to distinct the suspensions means and then the view from within for the condemn be educated person not all educated persons but many the
the sort of people who write editorials the New York Times The Washington Post a
long time so on the view from within is old I based pluralism and more like the
relativism the idea that they just is in the view
of the question you know what is the nature of the human condition has
experience from within the medieval ce could give very clear on
so the one that I described earlier on but for um modern man contemporary humanity the view from what
they looked pretty crazy and messed up and on service and
highly whether I mean we find as the pool well source a
different kind about that lies values freudian -ism I’m psychoanalysis marxism there is other
kinda alternative narratives through to the two figures all put in question the idea that things are as they seem to
us in our experience you know it’s it looks as if it were
image with my relationship with somebody else’s say one love love and in the freudian
tells me it really is as well the marxist tells me that mine
relationship with other means my societies and thought it
wasn’t really something else on the beach in those missiles on point and contemporary humanity reflective
educated people are the inheritors beecher and Freud and
marks do so on so the this kinda suspicion about mistrusted what
experience suggests and also the awareness that
experience yes very different things to different people that’s what
relativism the people’s experiences culturally jaded and different cultures differences experiences and then also
the rules and things like gender theory queer theory and so on all these some the the idea that there is such
thing as a common human experience which we have access reflectively and so
on so the first thing then to say is that in the medieval period it look like one could of the three perspectives or
imaginatively adopt them and findings to say about the human
condition as much information as those
perspectives and the things that was said were mutually confirming and produced a picture all what kind of Christian humanism whereas
today people are not sure that these
perspectives are all available and to the extent that they are they
seem to be in conflict with one another twosome so there’s a real confusion and I think that lot of confusion that
is around in the culture is related both the lead with
individuals and social groups but is related to this inability to
forget you picture of the human condition from you
diverse perspectives okay so let me know shift to a different the trio from concerns or perspectives I’m this is related but not exactly the same the this said really is um picks up on the idea that we recognize
in our souls uncertainly were told that we exhibit
tied into you and the malady so I genetic be theorizing and other conserve humans BCH things of that sort emphasize the
material foundations of human nature a.m. the genetic foundations and even below
that molecular biology and so on so the to
the extent they find a picture for animal it is very materially found a
picture um that’s one way of thinking about what it is to be
human which is really just to be a very complicated collection that matter that’s developed
in certain kinda way but there’s a different perspective on
what it is to be human which is the perspective judgment what I
mean is we’re told that we are we we differ from
the rest of the universe only in the organization the matter that
comprises us but on the other hand we have a very
strong sense the other bits of the universe be are
not responsible for their behavior in the way that we
may be so one aspect to our take on our souls which troubles is
deeply is that we seem to be on civil to
certain open desert country criticism was not
having done the right thing not what we have a sense of ourselves as
something some judgment people who are the on animals the and
have to make judgments about what in the car just as well let the forces
my mom they have to make decisions so this is
the world the sense all the perspective on animal being the is aware of the fact love the
necessity of making judgments and one is quite how that could be
because other animals don’t seem to be burned in
that way and related to that is the sense or
sells a subjective consciousness that matter as we see it on the one hand
we told them we are merely allegations that matter many ways that seems plausible on the
other hand the only things that were also stones or trees conscious so there is something very
peculiar about this particular aggregation matter that is conscious so those these three
more wins as we’re in a sense was sold are material in the melody I says what
sells as burdened by McCombs judgment but also
has been conscious on third set up a specter’s the way to get to this site %uh
perspectives is to think about action now I’m huh following on from what I said a
moment ago I said that we think of ourselves as material objects
we think of ourselves as conscious beings but we also think your cells as subject
to judgment as I think both make judgments ourselves
be Jamal gonna come to work on but no just taking that last stop is the
question to ask what he said think it’s john Lynch when judgments are
made when people say that was right or wrong
that was good or bad what is it that they’re judging right the wrong good or bad well the on his own serve that would seem to
be action its actions the judge you’re right along
good or bad so far as human beings are concerned I’m well then there’s ask yourself the
question what is action in this respect what is the
object to these kinds of judgments now when we ask that question something
very quick emerges which is that we typically use the word
action a broad sense and in the mountains so
the broad sense the action which is some judgment the kind of thing
that’s just the right wrong good or bad the broad said selection begins in the
agent certain cuz motivations carries through
into what they do and then issues in a certain outcome a
result so action in the brawls means as these three elements the agent
the thing done and the outcome of the resolve this
thing done but putting in that we will immediately see there’s an outdoor since
the mansion which is actions and so the thing done that we talk about action
might be concerned comprehensively with the Asians the
thing done the outcome thing done or we might be
concerned rather narrowly with the thing done sends a banshee and I was what did he do we were was Moses were and what there is also a
lot is could just be bragged about what are the engine do you with the use
or what did he do that’s been so much now here’s a good
way I think I’m organizing ethical theories or ethical thinking I’m if we ask a question about explanatory
priority then it’s pretty clear that explanatory
priority attack just two agencies and I’ll explain when I just said if somebody says where did this
come from I mean if we you know if I look at this
late all this microphone all the states for
fares which you are gathered here and I’m standing here how did that come about or painting
more building with the roomie how did that
come about well the answer is going to be in because certain things were done you know was
brought together was composed but as with all so we
explain in the state of affairs as being an outcome of things done and
then some said Behold overcome about those things were done
then the answer is going to take us back to the engines and their motivations are
purposes their plans and so on so in terms of explanatory questions agency precedes action action
policies on we explain outcomes as been consequent
upon things done and explain things down consequent upon
motivations that agents have so on but I want to ask
a different question not a question about explanatory
priority but a question about values priority if you’re is always being action in the broad sense what was weird
is that evaluation come from in terms of those three elements I mention the agent thing on
the outcome now you can take the view and some philosophers have done that involve priority attention as to
the outcome that’s a you trace Beaulieu to the outcome and so we characterize outcomes as being good
or bad in whatever way and then we say that an action is right
or wrong all good or bad inasmuch as is brought about that come
and the nation’s is good or bad inasmuch as they engaged
in that action with the purpose or intent on bringing
about outcome and put it that way what emerges from
this is broadly speaking consequential is a more more specifically that utilitarianism utilitarianism
theory the tax is a Bollywood priorities while
comes as posing as they were all let’s think about this deadly what
happens if we attach a large priorities thing done that’s what really matters then we’ll want to say that I love comes
and goes only insofar as they result from the right thing having been
done an agent will be good only insofar as
they do the right thing but it’s doing the right thing that has
a vital priority well on the basis and that will be
considered a single theories those originally term beyond logical don’t watch
political theories focus on certain right kind of action
and explain with the region’s those terms that’s why I’m the point you
some teases you if you do the right thing but it has disastrous consequences
you’re not in trouble or should not in trouble if you too in
suitable come to that prospect in your
deliberations what matters is the right thing and if you’ve done the right thing it
does have the right is all because the right was also the results
among them the right thing the other stuff is is less important
well that suggests a third possibility which is about a priority attention is
not to the outcome of the thing done but to
the agent so now we’re going to say we explain the rightness conduct in
terms of the right sort motivations ok I prints or and then a ride engines and
engine that is expressible flows from the good kind of character and be a good outcome is one that as a
result in action on a good character now um that third might go under the heading a virtue
ethics though if you’ve got a chance for some questions it would take that I why
I myself am skeptical about virtue ethics or reason which i’m happy to explain but
basically I i’m skeptical about all three of those
possible its and my own view is that a if you try and answer the question about the rightness
or wrongness election in the broad sense by getting along as a priority to one
wrong move those elements you’re going to end up the wrong view I actually think there’s
no advised priority that’s the same targeted a the
right to come of doing the right thing if you like a
ride Khambhat other than integrating the three elements the government agency
the relative calm but them about now having said that let me while I’m piling up all these
trio’s I let me moved to the fourth set up three perspectives so
that meant that 1 I’m just gonna get you the perspective on conduct from outcome the perspective something done this
perspective from agency I want to move on too much success with I’m perspectives this does bring in a
way to bioethics but not only for Bioethics I’m what he wants yes is that ethical deliberation 20 step back to
explain this what i was just talking about a moment
ago in terms of volume priority and ethical theories that is
ethical theory that is trying to construct general
philosophical comes of what means that what the right to come to give is over
rights belong in action over old as ethical theory but quite
apart from ethical theory which is explicitly
business the philosophers the moral theologians obviously getting
something someone there is something more basic and
perhaps more important which is ethical thinking I’m not talking about the same relief
loss was doing talking about the thing that anybody has to do whose alert to the
fact this perspective on the human condition
that sees what we do is being subject to judgment is this right is this wrong and so on
not necessarily a summary judgment may be our own John conscience or so what i’m
concerned. was not was on his wealthy but I still think deliberating about what to do now um the view that I want to recommend is
that ethical deliberation thinking about what
to do is conducted or than we thought to be
conducted within the three-dimensional space so three-dimensional space classically Cartesian coordinates and so on is
obviously formed by three young sons good I’ll good vertical or horizontal
ones and that um now I want to suggest that ethical deliberation occurs or should
occur within the three-dimensional space I’m and but I but I’m using the space
here metaphorically so let me explain what the three-time engines all the
constructors space on if you look at debates about say social ethical thing were societies are
trying to arrive policies on these matters organza
professionals are and individuals and as much as their
members a social group all members of professions one of the dominant models for
decision-making deliberation decision-making was broadly speaking a wealthy heiress utilitarian mom that is you are having to arrive at decisions that will impact upon people’s lives say
these are spending decisions resource allocation decisions so on what
you ought to be attend through was the impact that this would
have upon the world being on welfare of those concern and that model a is convenient in some ways because that gives you a very simple picture
which is home probability times expected utility I you’re trying to decide between
different options just assign values to the possible outcomes in terms of the night
they will have positively or negatively well be on welfare those concerned that
room till is a ranking and then you try and assign
probabilities the likelihood of those outcomes occurring if you don’t give policy and so on they’re also think you
have to throw in there like opportunity costs but but then read probabilities times
utilities time opportunity costs it’s just going to
give you a volume for each other com and it’s no surprise really in a way
that rational choice theory in welfare
economics which is what I just described the improved terms
was very influential on public policy me because it is it’s a
very clear with preceding want me to do you
know as a drug Eliquis you know should we invest money in the
world you guys drugs or should be invest money insert therapies jerk I will take the we can provide me more people well you just do that
calculation you think about the question implied have the opportunity cost the
probability the outcome and that was all models for you now the
obvious problem about this is those if you’ve been to any ethics class will know is that
utilitarianism as some on the front implications one is it
doesn’t respect that stinks that person’s what that calculation does it just
because everybody into the pool and then just makes to liberate it comes
to decision on the basis of I get welfare will be no utility another one
of course is which is related to this is that it’s instrumental eyes as people that allows
us to treat some people in ways that enormously harmful to them as long as they met with to the many is
greater than that and people thought that was a kinda
violation so the conclusion I draw from this is
not that consideration of welfare will be
described in the way that I just describe it is irrelevant but the constitutes at
most once and the problem with that kind of the
ethical thinking it was just one moment political thing so we need to add more alright so what’s the second image well on and you’re just sort of tracking
history I suppose it in the nineteen seventies would know better than i exactly when
this came on the scene the people start to say look something that this perspective is
failing to attend to which is the autonomy those fated that your losses were respecting I’m the distinct I the distinctive personal
but moreover you not respecting the rights to sell governments and to control their own
lives things about school so all comes onto the scene no is for example is a medically things enormous interest in things like consent
you know that you shouldn’t engage in any experimentation without
food for information send the parties involved and so on even
if it would produce goes well for you can’t do too much a secure their
consent that’s one we have expressing respect for autonomy or self-government
soul that stinks persons so that’s good but that gives a second image so now we
have two with two dimensional space but is not
enough I because as the great English philosopher actually Hoskote philosopher
John Stuart Mill’s said I do want to emphasize cuz I’m sure
he went all those who will as utility really went boom that point
but Jon Stewart was a great philosopher may consider woman in utilitarianism mill says it matters not
only what men do but what manner min they are the hood matters most to me
what men do what manner mean they are do mill as critics on the above-mentioned was
very concerned with virtual he thought it was exceedingly important
that people should be formed to be virtuous characters that’s what he meant by it
matters not only what you do what manner a person you are but does it
and what mill was concerned with Amy knows a problematic was a problem
reasons but what I think he was elected to the is that we don’t just want people to
do the right thing in the signs the the welfare promoting
been all the I’m autonomy respecting thing we want people to do things for the
right reasons so we don’t simply want these kinda bloodless bureaucrats distributing
wealth even come people’s you know consensual
agreement we want people to care about those that
they’re dealing with so again this commits with a tradition more recent addition by
wishful thinking the so-called exit care but the problem is that these different and by the way that some has been
connect with them the state if it snows look he said but um these ways of thinking are each interesting
but they couldn’t put they’ve been presented as well as is the
ethics autonomy should supplant the is a welfare and the ethics love
care should somehow supplant the ethics them autonomy just like some people say oh you know the ontology shoots a plan
to the terrorism or virtual tensions apart both I think that’s misstate as I said
earlier on I think the company such a thing as a pure virtue ethics I don’t think that would be a purely on
the logicalis I don’t think the pure outcome is a and i also think the left
glove first level moral thinking you can’t do
it things simply with regard to welfare
over gonna put on me or respect or with regard to care that you’ve got to work these
together we’ve got to try to what brings together
okay so what have we got to well what we’ve got home got to is this
my imagine friend the High Middle Ages had his problems our problems but they
weren’t conceptual intellectual problems these three viewpoints were available to
them they could be integrated weeee don’t with the people in this room
necessarily but more broadly we are in the situation which we don’t
know whether or not there are three perspectives we’re not sure what things look like for
most prospective the things is miss any word on how it would work and I think that these other trio’s or privileges I’ve been talking
about manifestations to some to be the same mom have a kind disintegration that we
recognize big with something about welfare really matters recognizing that
something about autonomy matters we recognize that came out with we just don’t know how they all matter
together so what are we going to do about it on well
at this point I could just see I don’t know that in the literature as well pose a problem but lately I think there
might be a little troublesome so that we just try is a little bit
about what I think we need to do well in brief what I think we need to do is to develop an account of course it is
to be human now the first thing to say is that a
plurality of perspectives isn’t in and of itself necessarily
problematic you know something might think the
problem that I’ve been posing as that there’s different ways and looking at
something and that in itself is the problem that’s
not the problem the very metaphor perspectives suggests
these perspectives on one and the same thing so it looks that even to describe a
plurality of prospectors presupposes unit him on GC so do a plurality viewpoints doesn’t in itself pose a
problem indeed as the on the contrary these viewpoints are viewpoints on one
thing and what we know about perspective the viewpoint is that that’s
what you get if you walk around something that looks different from from these different the space because
no incompatibility there on the contrary we can predict how to
look 1.2 you get them centrality thing and so on so in fact
perspective a unified by the old upon which they are specter
so that isn’t the problem and furthermore it doesn’t necessarily
the problem we’ve got different ways of thinking and really I mean one of the truths call analytical philosophy in the 20th century was really to see
how far could be taken a central Eastside all positive language the late 19th and
early 20th centuries the distinction drawn by free between
since reference and what that really is I mean figures
were putting this which is even more helpful is that all Jason ever just given to us
this by the way relates to its phenomenology up his and i was just given to us a
given to us by modes of presentation that is where our encounter with the
thing is always an encounter with it in a certain way to a certain body
information to how it looks from a given viewpoint
whatever it may be and I’m the message in this is that things can
look different because they’ve given by the was a
presentation all they can Sun different because
they’re given by the says the descriptions but these can be compatible could be one
and the same thing that is given one-way and give me another way so perspectives on problematical such in
securing unity or hearings and even differences love what
seem give different perspectives difference
and characters that were need internet so problematic because I’m
difference in character might be attributable to the existing
was a presentation I’m just think this will be different
kinds of animals might have different optic set up so that what looks red one
was going to another michael is a big problem but it might be
the same reality that is given under the was a presentation so it’s not that it’s not a perspective
is almost a presentation is the content with these so what I
think the task is trying to work out an account to the all
g8 these perspectives that the spectrum above from below within from a point to your
problems the point where I was if the point you well for point your but only the point
you have kids or something time worked out a picture what it is
that is the common LG if there is a common
object and that’s part of the challenge is that a common objective now here good evening breeze but i just
want to work sketch like me what i think is the
way to proceed in this on it is to form a conception what it is to be human be the formal understanding what it means
to be human being or two as it were articulate express and explore an
understanding what it is to be human being now going right back to my original
three perspectives I think any such I conception it should have space for the view from above the space the view from Bloomsbury the
view from within but I want to just not at this point
focus in but we feel you within because I think that the we won with believing what I just
proposes coal for something like naturalistic or
ethical naturalistic you human being that might resonate in some years with the idea that mantle on human
nature as conceived also by the scholastics or something of that sort when I do think that we need the kind of
human nature what it is to be human and I don’t think
that we have become what it is to be human I’m not
sure that even great thinkers Aquinas for the other and
what it means to be human but I know we don’t have one if he
didn’t have that we’ve got side to that because this fragmentation right described but here’s what I want
to suggest I’m some people think that appeals to
human nature are problematic for a couple reasons I mean the many reasons an image into
one was like going to something I said that the areas that which is that Aristotle and Aquinas and
others classically talk about management believed in things species
things species normally should now believe in things beijing’s I
mean whatever one wants to say about you lose money we
know that’s BC Asian has occurred by iteration over very long periods of time
and that there are continuities among species now me something special about beings and I
think there is something special about being but to say how it comes about there’s
something special about beings I think holes with you all along
but I’m what we know scientifically about history is BC Asian tells us that
the boundaries of human nature at least naturalist you are not things
I’m more could be said about I mean both
historically not fixed and they may not even be things single-handedly them in populations
concern which question are these human beings is a real question from genetic sign to
the point you I don’t mix lesser I’m just saying
that’s the nature BCH be operations or so there’s a some might say you can’t invoke images
there is no such thing as human age you lucien tells well that’s just a mistake um a belief in human nature is the idea of
a belief in there being some kind of underlying organizing principle whether that principle is dynamic
productivity rations generations centrism millions on or whether it’s fate is just a different
question the lead but which we’re proceeding I’m this is you know a moment re I blink the history
of the last three thousand years so even usually
time is much much more so than that so even
if that is the case the revolutionary changes is you human beings takes into things
will non-human we’ve got the pier that we’re looking at
some good-looking wrong is one which is relative thing
City so I think illusion itself does my mind me I all human age wouldn’t want your image
in and other concerned how the people have
is this biology lies as human beings that if we have this or the signs are we just
going to get by the story about genetics and all that
stuff that I stridently always been part problematic and I think the answer that since yes
that we just over and order signs we will have that
problem but then suddenly my so how could we have to be how could this inquiry be conducted
before not assigned quiet know the answer it seems to me is the viewpoint from with the that really the best in the only way a
finding out what human beings on is by seeing the way that human Nature
Reviews itself to us in our actions in those very things that I’ve been
concerned about consciousness experience agency and so on and I want to suggest that an understanding
of what it is to be human is not essentially an empirical inquiry
it’s not a question the way in which we might study certain
kinds spiders or something of that sort should
be done for next on the point of view we could tax on lies along with
interviews with me and so on the um classification human beings as
human beings is nothing that we gonna Gina typical it is is were I change you and conscience or I means for the Pirates we
classify ourselves as we are given to ourselves enough force in our actions I’m and what is given to us is nature the understanding of which is
formed not scientifically and nor is it an innate ideas it’s an idea is a concept thats
fashioned in action in other words we understand what we are
by what we do I’m not by observing ourselves
externally though obvious that information would be
interesting I nor a by viewing on so even the point of view gold but simply
and directly from the because that’s not the point few weeks
though but simply and directly from the perspective the agency and
human understanding is fashion through activity I mean understanding
not only the world but what it is to be human being what is to be human beings with the old
as human agency manifests itself in our own
consciousness in the No action now I think that one aspect to
add to that is that human nature is historically
dynamic and that’s to say although I’m not to anybody who usually
change I’m not talking about cultural development and so on that some the activity we have to look
at to discover what we are as cultural and social activity I’m and that i think is the is exceedingly important and but
this understanding is intrinsically normative it’s an understanding of our actions in
the workforce as being candidates for judgment why
mention that earlier on the what it is to be human agent is to
be sensitive to the fact that once thinking
is on swivel to stand as a great thing one’s action
is answerable to stand as the correct action and that
reveals to us and it’s on that basis that we fashion an understanding of what
it is to be human you don’t discover what it is to be
human being by by put it this way stunning beings I’m that’s part of the picture but that’s
secondary to learning what it means to be human being
by being one that this concert humanity is revealed to us in
our action and this to some extent up for
negotiation up for discussion and that’s why I think
these and struggles of the question to welfare the promotional well for the I’m regard for respect they’re gone for care
a really very important and perhaps more important than people
recognize because I think they’re not just debates about what’s right their debates
about what we are their ways of finding out what we are
that the human is refused to itself through the
thoughts and actions that it finds itself somebody to love
and what we find is that we have pooled by the some kind considerations now a to complete the picture as a stop
there on smartphones said about this I think when you start
to tease out these different strands we find that the review what’s
in action that I’m something what is revealed takes us back
to the three-part pictures which I began the picture from about the page bubble which was then because there are
things that reveal to us a bus or own agency that made absolutely
evident that the animals I do barbarism I’m around we’re not a we’re not angels
we’re not Carty’s insoles Augustinian souls and
bodies we are animals I’m but the second thing
I think reveals was it again and was under kinda governments not to love me and I think that relevant sense that the
many evils trying to ex-president sovereignty and
excellently was the wrong way to do it I and i think is an irrecoverable
concert for on sweetheart seriously I think con season and old way think gold is a
qAME I’m is a metaphor but it’s not it’s not
I think a sustainable manager for for adult human beings I don’t leave any political reasons
company think listings and it said it had its time it
has its place and so we have to think that workout
other ways of thinking about the relationship with Gordon goes relationship to us
however at that point I think I will conclude so thank you very much in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *