A Fact Made Obvious in Aurora, Colorado: Moral Goodness Not Indelibly Linked to Intelligence

In the aftermath of the horrible evil committed by a single shooter in an Aurora, CO, movie theater last Friday against innocent people gathered on the film's opening night to see, Dark Knight Rises, the erroneous nature of an all-to-common mistake of media pundits and social commentators has been made more clear. This is the mistake of presuming that certain people must be morally virtuous and admirable simply because they have a high level of intelligence and formal education.

It is indeed a serious error about human nature to fail to distinguish the very significant difference between the intelligence of a person (indicated by their level of formal education) on the one hand, and his moral character (and thus moral authority), on the other.

In my observation, many media personalities who comment about current affairs in whatever medium seem to presume that intelligence is somehow automatically linked with moral goodness. The more intelligent a person (especially if they have a PhD or MD), the more good they must be (so the presumption goes). And especially, this presumed moral integrity is seen as giving such persons the role of moral standard-makers, judging right from wrong on behalf of the rest of society.

I am not attempting to prove what I am saying here, but simply to point out what I think is rather an obvious fact of life if we simply reflect seriously upon our own experience. The truth is, moral virtue (and any moral authority therefore acceded), is not directly linked to intelligence. In other words, simply because a person has received a high level of education does not at all guarantee that he has also attained an admirable degree of moral rectitude. There is no direct link between them. The formation of a person's intellect and the formation of the core of his moral goodness do not advance by the same causes. It is a very serious and potentially dangerous mistake to assume such a link.

I mention this because TV reporters and other media talkers often seem to assign to highly educated guests to whom they may be speaking a level of moral authority roughly equatable to their level of expertise according to a scale of intellectual accomplishment. So, an expert in cardiology is asked a question that deals with morality and his answer is treated with the same deference and respect as his responses to questions about the physical heart. This is not wise.

The murderer who inhumanly snuffed out the lives of 12 and injured dozens more in that Colorado theater is a highly intelligent person. He had been in a Ph.D. program for neuroscience. And yet, obviously, the fact of his high scientific reasoning ability does not translate to his level of moral integrity.

A really smart person can be a brutal and soulless killer. I wish that reporters, journalists, and other media figures would keep this in mind and stop looking to everyone with a PhD in whatever field as worthy of being being given the status of a moral guide for society just because they are smart. They simply aren't. We must look to different criteria than intelligence and formal education if we are to discover a person's genuine moral character.

The Human Being in Heaven: Body and Spirit Together, Not A Body Only

When we think of heaven (those who do not believe that the human being is obliterated at bodily death), how do we imagine the joy that is there?

We can't, of course, know with any degree of thoroughness what heaven is like (1 Cor 2:9). But we can come to understand at least a few things, dim though they may be.

What does this have to do with the reality expressed in the title of this post, that human persons are not only composed of a physical body, but of a spiritual soul integrally united with a body?

Here is how this relates: I suspect that oftentimes when people of faith ponder the idea of life in heaven, they  imagine the joy of heaven in an unbalanced and thus incomplete way. By this, I mean that I have a hunch that sometimes we imagine only, or mostly, physical sorts of pleasures and leave out spiritual pleasure. And when we do this, we are shortchanging ourselves, hoping for a heavenly hereafter that leaves out a very integral part of our human nature. (Perhaps men are more prone to this than women.)

If I am at all correct in this, I have a suggestion as to why. It is because our life here on this earth, at least for many Americans, is so occupied and concerned with physical, bodily pleasures and discomforts. We are hyper-sensitive to our physical state of sensation, a luxury made possible by our contemporary American way of life. We want the best foods, the most comfortable cars, the most comfortable chairs, nice smelling places, the most comfortable temperature, etc. So much of what we call the enjoyment of life has become excessively concerned with physical comforts. This, in turn, tends to make us forget, or diminish, the spiritual aspects of our lives as human beings. And so, when we imagine eternity, perhaps we tend to translate our physical comfort-oriented existence here below into our notion of heaven.

Why might this be a problem? (For indeed, I believe that it is.) It is a problem because it can lead, perhaps, to our leading an unbalanced life here on terra firma before we die. If we neglect the reality of our spiritual souls, giving excessive attention to our body, we will not be able to grow and flourish as human beings in the fullest way possible. We have minds that are made for truth and goodness, and hearts that yearn to delight in the realization of beauty. This is also a problem because it might cause us to think of heaven in a rather inadequate way. The joy of heaven is no mere endless physical pleasure, like a never-ending ice cream cone. It is not a heavenly massage or a perfect recliner chair. This would not fulfill our nature as human persons, creatures of spirit and body both.

Whatever will be the myriad enthralling mysteries of eternal bliss that we will only know when we arrive, by grace, at our final home, we can say this with confidence. The experience of eternal joy that awaits us will delight every aspect of our human nature as human beings to the fullest extent. We will have unimaginable joy and delight of heart, mind, spirit, soul, and body. Life in union with the blessed Trinity will fully actualize the highest capacity of our mind's desire for truth, our will's desire for goodness, our heart's desire for beauty and for union with another person who loves us, and our psyche's desire for complete wholeness and integral and full self-possession. The full, total, and integral reality of our being will be engaged as never before.

So, when you muse about what might await us after death, don't sell yourself short and think in a way that would only imagine us to be bodily creatures who sense and feel. Realize too, that we have the faculties of our human spirit. And that our whole person, as an integral unity of body and soul, will experience the utter delight, peace, and joy for which we yearn.

A Question About Human vs. Animal life: Are We the Same or Different as Moral Agents? [2]

[continued from previous post] The most radical of animal rights proponents would have us believe that killer whales (and other animals) are just as significant and important in the world as human beings; they are people like us. Such proponents may not say this explicitly but their actions and words indicate this is what they believe. Not to accept this would be, in their view, "speciesism."

If we assume a killer whale is similar in value and nature to a human being, then a whale killing another higher animal (of whatever species, human or other) is either a) an intentional act of murder, or b) a morally neutral result of the animal's instinct and genetic programming. And if the latter, then a human being killing another animal (human or other) would likewise be a morally neutral result of instinct and genes.

What is the truth of the matter? Is the killer whale who grabbed the trainer and killed her guilty of murder? Or was he just doing what killer whales do?

If you think the second is the case (the reasonable and obvious position)--that the killer whale is not guilty of murder--then this forces us to accept that killer whales (and other animals by extension) and human beings are not essentially the same--we are substantially different in nature and value in the world. For if you agree that killer whales killing does not involve murder, you must either accept that neither do human beings ever commit murder (if we are essentially the same as whales), or, that human beings and whales are fundamentally different kinds of creatures. We, as persons, possess free will and are thus responsible morally for our freely chosen actions. Animals, as non-persons, are not morally responsible.

Here is a summary of the two points of view and their consequences:

Situation 1.
A. Human beings and animals are essentially the same.
B. Animals are not morally responsible for their actions as persons.
C. Therefore, human beings are not morally responsible for their actions, either.

Situation 2.
A. Human beings and animals are essentially the same.
B. Human beings are morally responsible for their actions as persons.
C. Therefore, animals are morally responsible for their actions, also.

If you are like most people, I'm sure you don't believe either of these situations correspond to reality. The conclusion C. in both is clearly wrong. Why? Because A. in both is false: human beings and animals are not essentially the same.

The truth of the real world is that we human beings are persons who possess ourselves as autonomous moral agents. Animals, however intelligent they might be, are not persons and thus do not possess themselves as autonomous moral agents. If you disagree, would you prosecute the killer whale for murder? Or,--would you dismantle the criminal justice system as irrelevant?

A Question About Human vs. Animal life: Are We the Same or Different as Moral Agents? [1]

[Part one of a two-part post] Yesterday at the Orlando SeaWorld a trainer met a horrible death in the jaws of a trained killer whale as visitors looked on. I pray she is now with Jesus.

This terrible event brings to mind how some people, especially those who identify themselves as animal rights activists, regard higher animals (such as chimps and dolphins and whales). Such people seem to believe that higher animals are persons just like us human beings except that they have different physical bodies and lack our language abilities while yet possessing an inherent moral purity and innocence that we lack. Explore the web site of PETA, for example, and you will see traits that are distinctive of personhood being ascribed to animals.

The most ardent animal rights people refer to animals in general as, "non-human animals." In so doing they suggest a close similarity in value between animals and human beings (i.e., "human animals"). The implication here is that in comparison to the rest of creation being an animal is what matters--all animals being relatively equal in value--while the difference between human and non-human within the animal kingdom is not especially significant. We humans, they believe, are nothing special. We can see this demonstrated in their use of such (silly) terms as, "speciesist," to label people who still believe (as the vast majority of the human race across the globe and throughout history) that we homo sapiens are qualitatively distinct and different from the rest of the animal kingdom and that this difference is, at a deep level, highly significant.

How does morality fit into this outlook? As in, for example, when one animal kills another? Is there any right and wrong?

When we place human persons and animals on the same level, two basic moral avenues are possible. Either, 1) animals are raised up to the level of persons so that both human beings and all other animals are regarded more-or-less equally as moral agents (persons) in the world; or, 2) human beings are lowered to the level of mere animals so that they together with all other animals are believed to be amoral creatures whose behavior is substantially determined by genes, instincts, and the total effect of one's environment. In other words, in the latter case, any notion of genuine free will (enabling us to act contrary to our genetic programming, instincts, and environmental influences) is simply an illusion.

These are the options. If we humans are not substantially different from animals then it must be the case that either we are both moral sorts of beings (i.e. persons with genuine freedom), or, we are both creatures who are never truly personally responsible as individuals for our actions.

Which of these does our society believe ? Do the elites of society differ from the ordinary person? How do we actually behave as a culture? [Continued in next post]

Life's Purpose: Where Do We Find a Shared Vision? A Secular vs. Faith Approach

 I would like to reproduce here some thoughts I initially put down in the comments section over at The Linde (see this post), the blog of The Personalist Project. This pertains to the subject of what is needed for a human culture to be truly human. How do we keep society from degenerating in a downward spiral? Is there a difference between secular humanism and faith-inspired personalism? These thoughts relate closely to my previous post about the myth of utopia.

* * *

Human beings need to understand our common human purpose from a source higher than ourselves. We need our true end to be revealed to us from above. This begins with pre-Christian religious sensibilities and conscience (placed in our nature by God) and culminates in Christ. Without this, we only have our independent, human and worldly ideas about the purpose of human life. Without a source greater than ourselves we are left with a struggle for power as the only way to ultimately settle the problem of which ideas about life should be placed above others.

And again, it could be said this way: there is no “ought” without an “is.” In other words, if we do not have a shared understanding of our own human nature (which comes from God whether we explicitly acknowledge this or not), we cannot come to a peaceable agreement on how we ought to live. And this lack of some minimum shared vision of our nature necessarily devolves into a struggle for power. For unless we have a common “is” we have no rational means by which to unite in common moral obligations.

It goes perhaps without saying that having a shared vision about the purpose and nature of human life does not require explicit faith. It does require good will and openness to what life teaches and openness to one’s conscience and to the innate religiosity within us.

But of course, the highest possible perfection of human society in this world could only happen after the revelation of Christ and the new availability of the New Covenant graces which were unleashed into the world by His passion and resurrection.

The Mind of Man and the Mind of God--A Mysterious Harmony

The topic of how religious people view the interplay between human reason and the mind of God is very important. The way in which the Catholic tradition understands this is one of those things that make me especially grateful to be Catholic. It helps us to steer clear of the two extremes that are rationalism (putting all the weight upon human reason) and fideism (putting all the weight upon what comes to us by faith).

Faith and Reason Together. The most enduring and robust strands of Catholic theology have long grasped a vision of the human person which realizes that the sort of knowledge that comes to us by faith (i.e. by a supernatural self-communication of God to man) should always be received in the context of a human mind fully alive in every way--whose natural powers of reason are always striving to fire on all cylinders.

Thus, we should have no fear or hesitation of simultaneously and vigorously engaging a most devout and pious faith together with the most rigorous and probing rational thought processes! The book of nature and the book of Sacred Scripture come from the same divine source. Our faith, necessarily, brings our minds beyond where our reason alone could go. But, in so doing faith never violates our reason; indeed, faith, in turn, gives our reason more nourishment to feed upon as it turns back to the book of nature enriched with the truths of faith.

Reason by Itself Knows Traces of God in the World. After briefly mentioning faith and reason together, I would now like to narrow my focus just to natural human reason, exploring how natural reason on its own, considered apart from faith, is still involved with God (and this is so regardless of whether a particular person is aware that God is real).

The natural operation of human reason itself has a connection with the knowledge God has of Himself within the Trinity.

If I understand this properly, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, God knows us (in the deepest, most thorough sense of the Creator knowing his creatures) within the same act of knowledge that is His own knowledge of Himself. In other words, as His creatures, God's knowledge of us is contained inside His own self-Knowledge. (Important note: this does not in any way mean that human creatures are a part of God's own nature, which would blur the clear distinction between God and His creation; it has more to do with the fact that God's knowledge of His creation does not add anything new to the knowledge He had of Himself before creation)

Now, what about human nature and our own ability to reason aside from faith? The idea (still using St. Thomas) of 'Image' is very important here. We are "images" of God (Gen 1:26). More specifically, we are images of The Image--who is Jesus Christ, the Son, the Word, the one Perfect Image of the Father. Now this Perfect Image which is God the Son is also the Truth and the Word--the Word which is the Father's perfect self knowledge, "spoken" to Himself.

What impact does this have upon our own natural reason? Because we are in our very nature images of this one Perfect Image of the Father, we, in our own human acts of knowing the created world, share (participate) in the very self-understanding of God within Himself. To gain authentic knowledge--to grow in wisdom and understanding of the world and of ourselves--is, by the very activity of our minds, to come more deeply into contact with the interior "thought" of God Himself. (Note: the new knowledge of God we gain by the gift of faith, opened to us at Baptism, is another thing beyond this and is not attainable by our reason alone; I am trying now to remain on the natural plane that all mankind shares regardless of faith.)

This train of thought leads us to see (though dimly) that knowledge and love--in God--are united. To know is to love and to love is to know, at least from the divine perspective. In the beatific vision knowledge and love will be one in the awesome splendor of each individual person's direct encounter with the Triune God. (The role of grace in our earthly life and how the infused virtues transform and elevate natural reason with a new capacity is another important aspect of all this which I won't try to go into here.)

I find this mysterious interplay between the mind of God and the minds of men fascinating. Without losing sight of the clear demarcation between God and man, creature and creator, it means that exercising the human mind upon the created realm is already to possess an awesome dignity--the dignity of being an image of God in the very operation of our minds as we learn and grow in our understanding of reality. For indeed, even as we know things independently as unique, free, self-possessed thinkers, ultimately it is also the case that we know all that we know in Him (in whom and through whom all things were made; Jn 1:1-5)! How's this for anthropological awesomeness!