meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Breakpoint

The Problem with Talking about Right and Wrong

Breakpoint

Colson Center

News, Religion & Spirituality, News Commentary, Christianity

4.82.8K Ratings

🗓️ 17 November 2020

⏱️ 5 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Perhaps the most helpful framework I know of in wrestling with moral issues comes from T.S. Elliott. Before we can know what to do with something, we must know what that something is for. For example, before we decide what we should do with human life (whether we should take it, make it, or remake it), we should know what human life is for.

The opposing sides of contemporary debates around bioethics, i.e. abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, in-vitro fertilization, and other assisted reproductive technologies, often proceed from very different beliefs about what it means to be human and, therefore, what it means for humans to flourish.

That is essentially the very important argument made by Notre Dame Professor O. Carter Snead in his new book What It Means to Be Human, which was recently called “the most important book of moral philosphy so far this century” by public intellectual Yuval Levin.

(Now, if you’ve already checked this off as too academic because of phrases like “moral philosophy” and “public intellectual,” I will have failed. My interview with Snead on the BreakPoint Podcast should change your mind.)

Our laws and policies and debates about beginning and end-of-life technologies are proceeding these days, says Snead, without a shared or articulated vision of “what it means to be human.” Or, to use T.S. Elliot’s framework, we are greenlighting incredible technologies and freedoms about how to begin life and how to end life, without a foundation for understanding what humans are for.

Absent any official conversation, contemporary bioethics merely assumes the dominant cultural narrative about human existence: that we are autonomous individuals living in moral isolation from everything and everyone. As Snead profoundly argues, “everything” includes our own bodies. In other words, some of the most profound moral decisions are made as if people are “disembodied wills.” Philosopher Alisdair McIntyre put it simply, “We have forgotten our bodies.”

Here’s why that matters. If we aren’t bound by our bodies, then we aren’t bound by the bodies of others, which means we have no responsibility for anyone for anyone or for any obligations that are not chosen. No relationship, not with fellow citizens, not with family members or friends, not with tradition or religion, can define for us who we are or how we live.

This view of what humans are for, or perhaps what humans are not for, has been dubbed “expressive individualism,” and is the dominant worldview shaping our laws and our cultural imagination when it comes to what humans should do, and what we should be able to do with humans (including those not yet born, or who are infirmed and elderly, or who perceive themselves to be “born in the wrong body,” or who are fertile or infertile when they don’t want to be).

This caricature of real people and the way we live fails to take into account one of the most basic realities of human existence: that we live and encounter each other as bodies, not just as desires and wills.  And our bodies are vulnerable. They are fragile. They get sick, and they eventually die. This reality creates mutual obligations within families, friends, and neighbors. Namely, to give without expectation of getting anything back and, also, and this is important, to receive without being able to give back.

In What It Means to Be Human, Snead makes clear that simply debating the morality of abortion, euthanasia, and assisted reproduction is not sufficient. Moreover, it’s not enough to train our kids or disciple Christians just in the morality of these issues. We have to ground our definitions, debates, and catechisms in anthropology, in what it means to be human.

If we are to love our weak, vulnerable, and dependent neighbors, if we are to defend them, we ought also remember that we, too, will be weak, vulnerable, and dependent someday. This is what being human is, and our laws and policies should reflect it.

My interview with Professor Snead can be heard on the BreakPoint podcast. Please listen, and then buy two copies of What It Means to Be Human: one for yourself and one for your pastor. Both the Podcast and the book are available at BreakPoint.org.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

Most of our cultural conflict features people just talking past each other.

0:05.0

But what if that could change on some of the most important issues?

0:09.0

For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street.

0:11.0

This is Breakpoint.

0:13.0

I think the most helpful framework that I know of that helps me wrestle with moral issues comes from T.S. Eliot.

0:19.0

Before we can know what to do with something, we need to know

0:22.6

what that something is for. For example, before we decide what we should do with human life,

0:27.4

like whether we should take it, whether we should make it, whether we should remake it, we should

0:31.9

know what human life is for. The opposing sides of contemporary debates around bioethics,

0:37.2

in other words, abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, and vitro fertilization, and other reproductive technologies, often proceed from very different beliefs about what it means to be human and therefore what it means for humans to flourish.

0:50.3

This is essentially the very important argument that's made by Notre Dame Professor O. Carter Sneed in his new book, what it means to be human, which was recently called, quote, the most important book of moral philosophy so far this century by Public Intellectual You've All of Then. Now, if you've already checked this book off as being too academic because of phrases like moral philosophy or public intellectual, I will have failed. My interview with Sneed on the

1:15.8

Breakpoint podcast should change your mind. Our laws and policies and debates about beginning

1:21.6

and end of life technologies are proceeding these days, said Sneed, without a shared or articulated vision of what it means to be

1:29.4

human. Or, to use T.S. Eliot's framework, we are greenlighting incredible technologies and freedoms about

1:36.5

how to begin life and how to end life without a foundation of what humans are for. And absent any

1:43.4

official conversation, contemporary bioethics

1:45.8

then just merely assumes the dominant cultural narrative about human existence and purpose,

1:51.2

that essentially we are autonomous individuals that live in moral isolation from everything and

1:57.4

everyone. As Sneed profoundly argues in his book, everything especially includes our own

2:04.4

bodies. In other words, some of the most profound moral decisions are made as if people are

2:10.7

disembodied wills. Philosopher Alastair McIntyre put it simply, we have forgotten our bodies.

2:17.4

Now, here's why that matters.

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Colson Center, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Colson Center and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.