Dear Eco,
I can now pose to you the question I wanted to ask in my last letter, the one I told you about. It concerns the basic ethical foundation for a layman in the framework of the “postmodern.” In more concrete terms: on what does he base the conviction and urgency of his moral behavior if, in creating an ethical system, he cannot call on metaphysical principles, transcendental values, or even universally valid categorical imperatives? Some readers complain that our discussions have been too difficult, so I’ll put it even more simply: what guides the secular person who does not recognize a personal God, makes no appeal to an Absolute, yet claims and professes moral principles, principles so firmly held that this person would give his life for them, and uses those principles to determine what acts he will perform at any cost or will not perform under any circumstances? There are laws, certainly, but by what authority can they require something as great as the sacrifice of one’s own life?
This is what I would like to reflect upon with you on this round of our exchange.
Of course, I’d like to think that all the men and women of this world, even those who do not believe in God, have distinct ethical foundations that lead them to act with righteousness so long as they adhere to them. I am also convinced that there are many people who do act with righteousness, at least in life’s ordinary circumstances, without reference to a religious foundation for human existence. There have been those who, even though they didn’t have a personal God, still sacrificed their lives rather than stray from their moral convictions. But I am unable somehow to understand what basic reason they would give for their behavior.
It is obvious that even a ‘lay” ethic can find and recognize the norms and values necessary for human coexistence. Indeed, that is how most modern legislation is born. But the establishment of a basis for these values that will not suffer from confusion and uncertainty, particularly in extreme cases — a basis that will not be mistaken simply for custom, convention, usage, functional or pragmatic behavior, even social necessity, but that assumes the weight of a true and right moral absolute — means not linking such a basis to mutable or negotiable principles.
This becomes even more important when we go beyond the realm of civil or penal law and enter the sphere of interpersonal relationships, of the responsibility each person has for the next, beyond written laws — the sphere of togetherness and giving freely.
By challenging the adequacy of a purely humanist basis, I do not mean to upset anyone’s conscience. I am only trying to understand what happens within that conscience at the level of basic motivation, with the idea of fostering a more intensive communication between believers and nonbelievers on the subject of ethics.
Among the major religions there has already been much dialogue and debate about shared ethical principles. The aim of such dialogue is not only the elimination of religious conflict but also the advancement of mankind. Despite the historical and cultural differences in play, such a dialogue is possible because all religions invoke, though in different ways, some kind of transcendental Mystery as the basis for moral action. A series of general principles and behavioral norms can therefore be defined by which every religion can both identify itself and join in a common effort without having to renounce any of its own beliefs. Indeed, “religion can justify unambiguously why morality, norms, and ethical values must be binding unconditionally (and not simply when it’s convenient) and hence universally (to all classes, ranks, and races). Man persists only insofar as he considers himself to be founded on the divine. It has become clear that only the unconditional can force unconditionally and only the absolute can bind us absolutely.” (Hans Küng, Project for a World Ethics).
Would such a dialogue on ethics between believers and nonbelievers, in particular between Catholics and secular people, be possible? I’ve endeavored to understand through the communications of certain laymen some profound and somehow absolute reason behind their moral behavior. For example, I’m very interested in what underlies some peoples impulse toward closeness and solidarity without having recourse to God the Father, Creator of All, and our brother Jesus Christ. My sense is that what they are more or less expressing is that the other is within us. He is a part of us, whether we love him, hate him, or are indifferent to him.
It would appear that this concept of the other within is considered by a segment of secular thought as the essential basis for notions of solidarity. I find this very striking, most especially when I see it in operation and leading to gestures of solidarity directed far away, toward the foreigner. I am struck also because when understood alongside St. Paul’s reflections on the only Body of which we are all part (see Corinthians 12 and Romans 12) this position assumes a powerful realism, and can be read as a path into Christian faith. But I wonder whether the secular interpretation, lacking this fundamental justification, is sufficient, and whether it bears the force of inevitable conviction and is able to extend, for example, to the forgiving of one’s enemies. Without the example and the word of Jesus Christ, who from the cross forgave his crucifiers, even religious traditions have difficulty with this last point. What can be said, then, about a secular ethical system?
I recognize that there are many people who behave with ethical correctness and sometimes perform acts of great altruism without having or without knowing if they have a transcendental basis for their efforts, and without referring either to a Lord Creator, or to the proclamation of the Kingdom of God with its ethical consequences, or to the death and resurrection of Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit, or to the promise of eternal life. It is from those realities that I derive the strength of my own ethical convictions, convictions that, in my weakness, I hope will always be the light and force of my actions. But without these or analogous principles, where does one find the light and the strength to act in the pursuit of good — not only when it’s easy to do so, but also when the limits of human fortitude are being tested, when one is facing death? Why do altruism, sincerity, justice, respect for the other, and forgiveness of ones enemies represent good, and why are those values always to be preferred to their opposite? Why are they worth dying for? And how does one know with certainty in particular cases what is altruistic and what isn’t? If there is not some ultimate, ever-valid justification for such attitudes, how can they possibly always prevail and win out? If even those who have strong arguments for ethical behavior struggle to comply, what becomes of those who operate with weak, uncertain, or wavering arguments?
It’s difficult for me to see how an existence inspired by these standards (altruism, sincerity, justice, solidarity, forgiveness) can be sustained for long in any and every given circumstance when their absolute value is not founded on metaphysical principles or on a personal God.
It is very important to find a common ethical ground between laymen and believers, so that both can work for the betterment of mankind, for peace and justice. The appeal to human dignity clearly constitutes a principle that establishes a universal basis for thought and action: never to take advantage of another person, always and everywhere to respect the inviolability of the other, always to consider every person as an unusable and untouchable reality. Nonetheless, at a certain point one must ask what the ultimate justification for these principles is. What is human dignity based on if not the fact that every person is open to something higher and larger than himself? This is the only way human dignity will not be circumscribed by baser concerns, the only way to guarantee an inviolability that nothing can put into question.
I feel a great desire to reinforce everything that promotes community of action between believers and nonbelievers toward the advancement of mankind. I am also aware, however, that sooner or later, without an accord on fundamental principles, something will be triggered that reveals a fundamental divergence when we come to extreme cases or cutting-edge questions. Solidarity becomes more difficult, and conflicting ethical judgments concerning central issues of life and death begin to emerge.
So what do we do? Proceed together with modesty and humility on those points about which we agree, hoping that opposing motives and conflicts will simply never arise? Or do we work together to try and deepen the logic of general agreement on subjects such as justice, peace, human dignity, in order to arrive at those unspoken principles that lie behind our daily decisions, and that reveal either a basic disagreement, which will stand as it is, or perhaps the possibility of moving beyond skepticism and agnosticism toward a “Mystery” we can all put our faith in because from it is born the chance to build a more humane world?
It is on this gripping question that I would like to know your thoughts. Discussion of specific ethical issues always brings one back to questions about what underlies them. So it does seem worthwhile to investigate these topics, to shed a little light on what each of us thinks and to better understand the others point of view.
Carlo Maria Martini