Man Dismantled

Like a tree in which the top sections are dependent on the integrity of what stands below, ethics as a branch in the field of philosophy is largely dependent on a more fundamental lower branch from it, that branch being anthropology. For we cannot speak of the moral activity of man (ethics) without first defining what and who man is (anthropology). In fact, all philosophy, if we are to begin with the most specific and proceed to the more general, works in this backwards aggregate sequence. In defining man, we must first have an understanding of existence itself and this preceding area of study we call metaphysics. Of course, knowing existence presupposes that we can know anything at all, hence, prior to metaphysics we must delve into the methods and limits of human knowledge, and this philosophical arena we call epistemology. Thus, if we are to consider the reverse direction from the aforementioned listing of fields in philosophy (i.e. now we are to move from the bottom up, from the trunk to the top, from what is initial to that which is terminal, from the theoretical to the most practical) we move first from epistemology to metaphysics, and then we pass from metaphysics to anthropology, and finally progress up from anthropology to ethics. But this whole movement we call philosophizing finds its unity in being grounded in the truth established by God and discoverable through the use of human reason.

Different ages have indeed intensified focus on certain limbs of philosophy over others, but philosophy in general has always been seen as a wholly integrated search for truth. If we are to continue using the image of a tree, at the end of the day philosophy will only be healthy, full, and fruitful when no branch substantially overshadows another- for this will ensure each area of study receives enough light in order to allow wisdom to continuously grow.

The culmination of philosophy then, the top of the tree so to speak, is ethics because integral to our purpose, what we are here for, our very telos, is how we are to act. "Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" asks the rich young man (Lk 18:18). It is the moral activity of man that shapes the initial contours of an individual’s life, setting him up to attain his ultimate destiny in God. Indeed, the eternal life of his soul, at a minimum, is wrapped up in how he is to live- “You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother’” (Lk 18:20). All these moral commands which bring about natural happiness are prerequisites to later accepting the more extraordinary counsel given to those who desire an even greater supernatural happiness: “If you would be perfect, sell all that you have and give to the poor…and come, follow Me (c.f. Mt 19:21, Lk 18:22).

Ethics is to be thought of then as the crown of natural human wisdom. If philosophy- being the handmaid of theology- paves the way for theological knowledge, ethics is the topcoat of asphalt that makes the transition from natural to supernatural smooth. Likewise, as John the Baptist was the last of the prophets before the Christ, ethics is the last of the philosophical sciences before faith. Ethics is crucial to discerning the direction natural man is pointing before he can mature into his supernatural calling.

Yet, we must remember the point articulated above: any ethical framework is built upon the prior foundation of what comes before it, and in philosophy, that fundamentally prior science is anthropology. This distinction is crucial to consider for I think our present philosophical crisis within the modern world’s encounter with ethics- where it appears there is a moral paralysis in determining the rightness or wrongness of anything- lies precisely in this arena of our contemporary confusion in anthropology.

In fact, I believe our present anthropology has gravely hindered contemporary man's ability to live well (i.e. to live morally/ethically) because popular opinion in regards to man’s view of himself has quite drastically eliminated any common and necessary orientation in his makeup besides the mere satisfaction of appetite. Indeed, there is no longer a clearly defined unique nature recognized in the substratum of man anymore which sees the human person through a supernatural lens; rather, man is now considered nothing but an animal with countless contradictory passions which, if left unsatisfied, prevent human happiness from being attained. Contemporary anthropology has dismantled the intrinsically human ordered search for the good which man has historically found in living virtuously.

Allow me to elaborate on this point. It is characteristic of the physical sciences to aggressively distinguish and reduce nature into smaller fragmented parts, the study of which is accomplished by specialists. In addition to the benefits of such individually specific study which enables man to expand his capabilities in manipulating the individual parts of the world to his advantage, in our time, a downside to this reduction can be discerned as well: for man's all-encompassing emphasis on the individual empirical sciences has also been the source of much of his confusion in that the world's fundamental and overarching unity is simply dismissed vis-a-vis the myopia of the specialist. Presently, because scientific knowledge has been permitted to eclipse all other avenues to knowledge available to man ("Science is real" is the mantra of the hypnotized masses which choose not to see anything else as real besides its own scientific ideology), this ever microcosmic way of categorizing the world has also shaped modern man's vision of himself as no longer being that of a unified person, but one that is utterly fragmented- an individual being with conflicting and often incongruous parts, when thrown together, make him a sort of tin-man type of person, possessing interchangeable appendages and limbs, but lacking at his core a heart.

The most recent movement that has taken on explosive force apropos this scrappy view of man has been articulated through the ideological lens of a particular understanding of gender dysphoria. Within this radical ideology, it is common to see distinctions being made within the human person as 1. having a physical body, 2. having a psychological makeup, and 3. having emotional attachments and aversions. In days gone by, these distinctions- real as they are- would be referred to as the body, mind, and heart of man. However, what makes the gender ideologue’s outlook different from the classical understanding of body, mind, and heart is found in the ideology’s overemphasis of these conceptual distinctions, seeing in them- more often than not- contradictory and irreconcilable elements at play. This gender ideological onslaught slices into pieces the intrinsic unity of the human person and asserts that, instead of man being a person with a form wholly oriented towards objective goodness/truth through the matter of his body, the body may show one thing about a person's sex, his mind might think differently from the biology of his body, and the heart is attracted to whomever or whatever it pleases.

Thus, moving far beyond the Judeo-Christian view of man as a body and spirit united together to make up one distinct person, this disjointing appraisal of the human person shreds him into pieces by severing his internal unity- a unity which in former times was referred to as the enlivening principle known as the soul. No longer is man looked at as a body and spirit united together, now he is seen as a machine with disconnected parts and no intrinsic unity- that is, no soul that identifies him as a ‘him’.

It will become clear as to how this view necessarily influences one's ethics. If man is no longer seen as a corporeal-spiritual person guided by the intellect (orienting him towards truth) and governed by the will (drawing him towards goodness), what he does and what he thinks and what he wants are given isolated value in their own right. Long ago has a hierarchy of goods and values been jettisoned from modern man's vocabulary about himself. Indeed, whichever way the wind blows for one element in man is seen as the guiding direction in which his identity is constructed- too often to the utter neglect of his original and obvious created identity by God. Justice Kennedy's definition of a truly free human being as one having "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" comes to mind.[1] Nothing is received any more, indeed all things are now thought of as constructions! One's gender identity- alongside one's ethics- are determined by us and the varying inclinations of our component parts. Existentialism has certainly found a comfortable home in such a "freedom" loving culture.

To make the case as to how this perception of man shapes his understanding of moral right and wrong can now be made clear by juxtaposing it with the traditional view of ethics. Formerly, for a moral judgement to be made and praise or culpability given to an individual, an evaluation of three things was considered: A.) the act itself was regarded (whether it was objectively good or evil), B.) the intention of the actor (what he desired as an end result and whether his cooperation in the act was formal or material), and C.) the situation in which the act was performed. This wholistic approach to morally evaluating an action was a natural result of man being viewed not merely as complex and conflicting (which he is, especially through inheritance of original sin), but as a unified whole. In the former analysis of ethical judgement, no element within the performed act can be evaluated in isolation of the others- save the objective value of the act itself, for only the intrinsic nature of good or evil provides the foundation upon which a moral order can be established in the first place.

However, with the modern compartmentalization of man, ethics is often viewed solely from the intention of the doer (see B above) to the neglect of considering the objective goodness or evil of the moral action (see A above). Compare this to the gender ideologue's view of placing primary emphasis on how a person feels or thinks- what his heart or mind appear to tell him (compare this to B above)- as a determining factor in his sex, to the neglect of the anatomy of his body (compare this to A above). It sounds a lot like the ethical subjectivist who judges the moral value of an action by his formal or material cooperation in it without considering the objective goodness or wrongness of the it he is talking about! Intention seems to be the only criteria that matters in modern ethics just as subjective feelings and desires seem to be the only criteria in anthropology. Within the ethical realm the consequence of such thinking creates complications in understanding the moral order because it no longer acknowledges universally good acts or universally bad acts- apart from the situation in which they are performed or the intention of the actor. In our current ethics all now depends on the nebulous and elusive idea of intention just as in current anthropology seen through the gender-identity construction all is dependent on the equally insecure and unstable idea of how one "identifies". Thus, the result of such confusion in not knowing who we are directly correlates to our ignorance in not knowing how we are to live. The egg of a deformed anthropology has hatched and brought forth the chicken of an unhealthy ethics.

But we are not to lose hope. We can simply reject the gender ideology paradigm altogether and affirm that just as there is an objectivity in the biological makeup of the body, so too is there a sort of “anatomical” pattern to be discerned within morality. Conversely, in order to hold fast to an anchor in the moral realm, contemporary man must strive to regain an anchor in his anthropology. He must see himself once again as a unity of body, mind, and spirit oriented towards truth and goodness rather than a creature haphazardly thrown together with no metaphysical unity nor purpose beyond what he himself desires. Anthropology and ethics go hand-and-hand for it is "only by obedience to universal moral norms [that] man finds full confirmation of his personal uniqueness."[2] What a consolation it is to realize our own personal uniqueness is to be found only after following that which we share in common with others. Indeed, one’s uniqueness- that special quality that makes a person an unrepeatable individual- is found within the depths of what is common for all humans. Amid are characteristic differences we all find ourselves in the same boat of humanity!

Man does not just have a body, he is a body. Man does not just have a mind, he is an embodied mind. Man does not just have a soul, he is a soul made intelligent so as to love. No good can come from eliminating or separating one of these dimensions of his person from the others. Once a natural separation occurs in the material realm where one of these elements is isolated to the exclusion of the others, death is the physical result. In the intellectual realm, we should not expect anything less than mental and spiritual death when man artificially separates his different modes of being so as to reconcile reality to his own ideology.

[1] c.f. the 1992 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[2] John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, Vatican (Boston, MA: St. Paul Books and Media, 1993), 118.