Rosmini’s Theory
of Ethics:
Some Considerations
by
J. Anthony Dewhirst
Preface
Rosmini has defined philosophy as
the science of the ultimate ‘why’.(1) Pope John Paul II echoes this when he says in his encyclical,
Faith and Reason:
|
Born and nurtured when the human being first asked questions about the reason for things and their purpose, philosophy shows in different modes and forms that the desire for truth is part of human nature itself. It is an innate property of human reason to ask why things are as they are, even though the answers which gradually emerge are set within a horizon which reveals how the different human cultures are complementary.(2) |
The Pope later says,
|
The truth comes initially to the human being as a question: Does life have a meaning? Where is it going? At first sight, personal existence may seem completely meaningless. It is not necessary to turn to philosophers of the absurd or the provocative questioning found in the book of Job in order to have doubts about life’s meaning. The daily experience of suffering — in one’s own life and in the lives of others — and the array of facts which seem inexplicable to reason are enough to ensure that a question as dramatic as the question of meaning cannot be evaded.(3) |
Questions such as ‘Who am I’?, ‘Why do I exist’?, ‘What is existence, being?’ are even more basic questions to which the non-philosopher would be hard put to find an explanation. He probably does not even advert to these questions never mind ask them. Yet he constantly uses the words without further thought. These queries underlie humanity’s ceaseless questioning about the meaning of life. The tragedy of teenage suicides demonstrates only too sadly the inability of some young people to satisfy their yearning for a meaningful existence. Society’s offering of material goods, whether drugs, sex, alcohol, wealth or achievement has not answered their quest for personal dignity and true freedom, that is, freedom from the tyranny of evil and obedience to the law of God.
|
God’s law does not reduce, much less do away with human freedom. In contrast, however, some present-day cultural tendencies have given rise to several currents of thought in ethics which centre upon an alleged conflict between freedom and law. These doctrines would grant to individuals or social groups the right to determine what is good or evil. Human freedom would thus be able to ‘create values’ and would enjoy a primacy over truth, to the point that truth itself would be considered a creation of freedom. Freedom would thus lay claim to a moral autonomy which would actually amount to an absolute sovereignty.(4) |
We often hear people saying ‘It’s my right’, ‘I have a right to do what I like with my own body’ and so on. It never seems to be questioned where this alleged right comes from. A good example is the espousal of animal rights. Recently the New Zealand parliament debated an animal welfare bill that would accord the equivalent of human rights to chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and other great apes.
|
The ontological distinction between animals and human is impossible to ignore, even by those who respect its Judaeo-Christian origins. Though the chimpanzee shares 97 per cent of our genetic make-up it has a fundamentally different status in the order of creation. All human beings are persons: they are capable of distinguishing good and evil. Animals cannot be persons in the moral sense. It follows that animals cannot be accorded human rights.(5) |
Moreover rights in civil law do not always encourage moral behaviour. Being admissible in civil law does not make an action moral. The civil law permits abortion, but abortion is intrinsically evil because it involves the killing of an unborn child. Lord David Alton recently wrote that in Britain in the last 30 years there have been 5 million abortions, and that since the passing of the Fertilization and Embryology Act (1990) we have experimented on or destroyed about 100,000 human embryos in British laboratories.(6) As one author put it, embryologists, with H.E.F.A.(7) approval, are now playing God. When an unborn child is wanted, it is a baby; when it is unwanted, it is a foetus; when it is needed for research, it becomes a pre-embryo. We have donor sperm and donor eggs, and surrogate mothers to bear children for other people. Technology thus used unethically leads people away from God.
|
And since it leaves no space for the critique offered by ethical judgement, the scientistic mentality has succeeded in leading many to think that if something is technically possible it is therefore morally admissible.(8) |
Rosmini demonstrates that our need
to know has its foundation in the fact that all intelligent beings are naturally
orientated to the contemplation of ‘being’ from the first moment of
life. This is in fact what makes us intelligent and made in the image of our
Creator.(9) Pope John Paul again says,
|
By virtue of the splendour emanating from subsistent Being itself, revealed truth offers the fullness of light and will therefore illumine the path of philosophical enquiry.(10) |
And therefore
|
No-one can avoid this questioning, neither the philosopher nor the ordinary person. The answer we give will determine whether or not we think it possible to attain universal and absolute truth; and this is the decisive moment of the search. Every truth — if it is really truth — presents itself as universal, even if it is not the whole truth. If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all times. Beyond this universality, however, people seek an absolute which might give to all their searching a meaning and an answer — something ultimate, which might serve as the ground of all things. In other words they seek a final explanation, a supreme value, which refers to nothing beyond itself and which puts an end to all questioning. Hypotheses might fascinate but they do not satisfy. Whether we admit it or not, there comes for everyone the moment when personal existence must be anchored to a truth recognised as final, a truth which confers a certitude no longer open to doubt.(11) |
The strength and the validity of Rosmini’s philosophy lies in the recognition of the objectivity and universality of the notion of being which shines before the intellect, the lumen intellectus, an aliquid divinum totally other than the subject who contemplates it.
|
If the intellectus fidei wishes to integrate all the wealth of the theological tradition, it must turn to the philosophy of being, which should be able to propose anew the problem of being — and this in harmony with the demands and insights of the entire philosophical tradition, including philosophy of more recent times, without lapsing into sterile repetition of antiquated formulas. Set within the Christian metaphysical tradition, the philosophy of being is a dynamic philosophy which views reality in its ontological, causal and communicative structures. It is strong and enduring because it is based upon the very act of being itself, which allows a full and comprehensive openness to reality as a whole, surpassing every limit in order to reach the One who brings all things to fulfilment.(12) |
Rosmini teaches that the notion of being is the first universal exemplar and the first universal truth through which we know all things. Things are true in so far as they conform to it. There is no other rule of the mind that can take its place. Pope John Paul says that at the present time the search for ultimate truth often seems to be neglected. Truth transcends our individual and subjective whims and theories. We ignore truth to our peril. This leads to our being governed by caprice rather than an objective morality and being judged by pragmatic criteria based on technology.(13) The problem is that at the present time
|
Some philosophers have abandoned the search for truth itself and made their sole aim the attainment of a subjective certainty or a pragmatic sense of utility. This in turn has obscured the true dignity of reason, which is no longer equipped to know the truth and to seek the absolute.(14) |
It is easy to see how lack of objective truth entails a lack of objective morality. In fact it leads to situational ethics or a pragmatic attitude to what is right and wrong. What suits me and/or society is the order of the day. ‘It’s all right so long as it doesn’t harm anybody else’. We thus create our own morality. Whether it has any bearing on the truth is another matter altogether. As Pope John Paul says, the essential bond between truth, good and freedom has been largely lost sight of by present-day culture.(15)
|
In his journey towards God, the One who ‘alone is good’, man must freely do good and avoid evil. But in order to accomplish this he must be able to distinguish good from evil. And this takes place above all thanks to the light of natural reason, the reflection in man of the splendour of God’s countenance.(16) |
Saint Thomas comments: the light of natural reason whereby we discern good from evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else but an imprint of the divine light.
Society therefore needs
|
a philosophy of genuinely metaphysical range, capable, that is, of transcending empirical data in order to attain something absolute, ultimate and foundational in its search for truth... and in particular it is a requirement for knowing the moral good, which has its ultimate foundation in the Supreme Good, God himself.(17) |
Rosmini explains that observing
sound ethics makes us good human beings. This is precisely what is offered in
the following pages. He will show that the foundation of all morality lies in
the light of natural reason, that is, the idea of being or truth. This is an
objective exemplar wholly independent of us and to which we must conform in
our actions. Not to follow this truth is the source of immorality. All immorality
is ultimately a lie; it is a refusal to admit the truth. Christians will see
clearly that this reflects Christ’s teaching: ‘I am the way, and the
truth and the life’; ‘If you continue in my word, you are truly my
disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free…
Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin… if
the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.’(18)
Notes
(1) Cf. Antonio Rosmini, Sistema filosofico, nn 1-3.
(2) Fides et Ratio, 1998. This translation, Catholic Truth Society, 1998, Introduction n. 3, p. 6.
(3) Op. cit., n. 26, p. 42.
(4) Veritatis Splendor, 1993. This translation, Catholic Truth Society, 1993, n. 35, p. 57.
(5) Daily Telegraph, Editorial, February 1999. They have no rights because they have no intellect and therefore no morality.
(6) Lord David Alton, A Civilization of Love, Bible Alive, Easter 1999, p. 47.
(7) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Losing our humanity at the embryo bank, Melanie Phillips.
(8) Fides et Ratio, n. 89, p. 130.
(9) Gen 1: 26. ‘It should never be forgotten that the neglect of being inevitably leads to losing touch with objective truth and therefore with the very ground of human dignity. This in turn makes it possible to erase from the countenance of man and woman the marks of the likeness to God, and thus lead them little by little either to a destructive will to power or to a solitude without hope’ (op. cit., n. 90, p. 131).
(10) Op. cit., n. 79, p. 115.
(11) Op. cit., n. 27, pp. 43-44.
(12) Ibid., n. 97, pp. 141-2 (emphasis mine).
(13) Cf. ibid., n. 5, pp. 9-10.
(14) Ibid., n. 47, pp. 72-3.
(15) Veritatis Splendor, n. 84, p. 129.
(16) Op. cit., n. 42, p. 66.
(17) Fides et Ratio, n. 83, p. 122.
(18) Jn 14: 6, and 8: 31-32, 34, 36 (NRSV).
| Contents |