I was listening to the radio on the way into work this morning and heard a story about how some scientists are afraid they’ll have to throw out the past eight years’ worth of research on human embryonic stem cells.
The reason? It seems that proper consent was not obtained for some of the stem cell lines that President Bush approved back in 2001. I can only assume they were talking about these objections from a UCSF team.
I had to laugh. They can’t do the research because they don’t have a signed permission slip?
Yet these same people pooh-pooh those who object on the grounds that the embryos are human lives being destroyed. Because that’s just not an important question.
Consent: the sole criterion of the good?
My friend Mark likes to point out that our culture seems to have rejected every virtue except tolerance, and every standard of goodness or value except informed consent. He notes that neither of these are sufficient to base a human society on; in fact, they both ultimately lead to a society that collapses upon itself.
I think the problem is that we have, by and large, accepted unquestioningly the myth that we are first and foremost individuals. A nation, a community, even a family, is presumed to be something that we enter into by choice. We have a “social contract,” and all our relationships suddenly have the nature of a contract. They are negotiated, agreed to, and disputes are adjudicated based on the terms of the contract as understood by the parties.
No wonder we have so many lawsuits. No wonder politics has become the common religion practiced by Americans. No wonder the only solutions we can come up with to any problems are legal ones.
No wonder we pay more attention to a medical form than to a human life.
Why human nature is important
On the other hand, all the ancient and medieval thinkers knew that the human person is a social animal. “No man is an island,” as John Donne put it. We cannot be born without other people. We cannot survive without a family. We cannot accomplish any tasks without relying on others to provide what we cannot provide for ourselves.
And we cannot be fully human without other people to converse with, to laugh with, to play with, to work with. We actually are least human when we are isolated as individuals.
When we forget this, when we base our entire sense of goodness on my own individual consent – as if I were utterly independent of the rest of the world – then we lose sight of what is truly good for the human person: love, friendship, collaboration, joy and peace. All these are gifts; they cannot be legislated and are not subject to a contract. We have no right to them. The only consent required is the consent to receive them from those who love us.



“Informed consent” is somewhat of a joke. It’s okay to invade my privacy (sell my name to others), strip away rights (I can’t sue credit card companies), (and in this case) use the embryos of people desperate to have children because it was signed it away and they “know” about it. Bleck.
Now take the next step and start applying your understanding of the nature of man to other issues. Such as interrogation. We live in a milieu of individualism where we first look to the individual and thus to rights of individuals when we should be looking to the community, and man as naturally existing in that community.
When I asked the question on Coalition for Clarity, about the nature of a soldier qua soldier, what is needed to be looked at is what does that nature entail when a soldier is captured? A paroled P.O.W. is not a soldier, but a P.O.W. is a soldier suffering a privation. How does that privation qua soldier play out?
Thomas Fleming just wrote an article on marriage which might be analogously helpful :http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2010/02/26/three-weddings-and-a-funeral/
Or take Zippy’s arguments of voting being an individual act. We vote singularly, but voting is not an individual act, but a joint act among those who have the authority to form the government. Authority exists in the individual as potency, but existing in the community as actual.
The soldier qua soldier only actually exists in community, and when that community is an unjust aggressor, what is possible to stop that aggression of the community.