Human Nature

You ARE the Problem of Evil

This is such a convicting message. I do not think it answers the logical problem of evil, but it does provide a perspective that is desperately needed today. We’re too busy complaining about how God doesn’t do this or that but just who the heck do you think you are? What are YOU doing to help others? I’ll tell you what the problem here is: you are NOT a good person, no one is (Romans 3:10). I always see these pictures of starving children, only to find that God is blamed while people go purchase a BMW or a shiny new TV screen. If humanity was as “good” as society thinks it to be, there’d be no problem of evil. We have had CENTURIES of time to correct this problem but even with all our knowledge and resources, we have had nothing to show for it. Humans like to compare themselves to others, particularly when it comes to their “moral values’. Look, if your goodness is based on how you are NOT Hitler then your moral understanding is as stupid as someone who judges their running performance by how quickly they outrun toddlers.

Don’t be naive. First, educate yourself in what good and evil is. It all starts with the conscience, but that has been willfully corrupted by society today. Mankind is skilled in the art of self-deception. It’s easy for a person to not see their own corruption when their corruption has become their justification. What was once known to be wrong is excused in the name of happiness, pleasure, and rights. Sadly, I think too many are unwilling to educate themselves on these matters because they really don’t care if it is wrong or not. Which leads me to my second point: examine yourself. Don’t compare yourself to the standards of the world, compare yourself to God’s standard. Even those without God’s law, such as Aristotle, have recognized the intrinsic sinfulness of lust, envy, pride, and every sort of evil that is regarded as good today. How do students respond? They complain it is impossible to follow because the mean requires us to do the right thing in the right circumstances to the right people. They don’t raise intellectual objections, instead they reject it because that standard of perfection is impossible for them. Indeed, we want a standard that makes us feel good about ourselves.

If you want to live a lie, suite yourself, but that standard is already applied by unbelievers and it has not made the world any better. In fact, I’d argue that it has made it much worse. Lust has been treated as a commodity, and girls are treated as a prey to be used for their own sexual gratification. I see people raise questions such as “Why would God care if I masturbate at night?” and think this suddenly settles the issue. It’s a ridiculous question, given that the action in question is done for yourself when the organs are clearly intended for another person. By pleasing yourself, you’re depriving a future wife that has a right to that good at all times. Oh sure, you can excuse yourself by saying “She can still have sex with me and I can still watch my porn” but in effect, you may as well tie your wife to a bed and have sex with someone you met in the bar right in front of her and expect everything to be okay. You’re saying that she’s not enough to please you. Face it, you’re a disgusting perverted whore and you just don’t give a crap about anyone but yourself.

I do not apologize if the tone seems harsh, I think you’re too corrupt for your own good. The world needs to be convicted of their sin for what it really is. Another common sin is pride. You may be unwilling to accept what I have said simply because you do not want to think that “lowly” about yourself. Self-esteem is very important, so they say. That’s a load of vomit. You already love yourself enough, that’s the problem. Whenever you’re involved in a relationship, you probably think it’s about “you” and how she makes “you” feel happy. What happens when you don’t feel that way anymore? What happens when trials come and your relationship looks as if it is not working out? What usually happens with people like this is that they attempt to find happiness in some other girl. This leads to cheating, which leads to divorce. A relationship like that cannot work because you’re centered too much on your own pain, your own emptiness, and your own misery to focus on making her happy again. That’s pride at work, folks. I think Pascal puts the wretchedness of man so well:

“The greatness of man is so evident that it is even proved by his wretchedness. For what in animals is called nature we call wretchedness in man; by which we recognize that, his nature now being like that of animals, he has fallen from a better nature which once was his. For who is unhappy at not being a king except a deposed king? Who is unhappy at having only one mouth? And who is not unhappy at having only one eye? Probably no one ever ventured to mourn at not having three eyes; but anyone would be inconsolable at having none.”

In other words, our wretchedness is proved by our fallen state of unhappiness. No man would be unhappy unless they have fallen from a higher state. Instead, humanity has looked to the lower pleasures of this world to find the satisfaction that they desire. They never find true happiness because they’re too enslaved to lust, drugs, adultery, and the self to chose any differently. Even the “good” actions of men can be tainted by selfish motives. Someone could donate to charity to relieve their conscience, for example, without really doing it for their good. Others could do so because they want to be recognized or think this makes them special from the rest of the world. Good acts always seem to be tainted by something. It’s no wonder our works are like filthy rags to God (Isaiah 64:6). Don’t be surprised that you do not have a desire for God when you don’t truly desire righteousness. Everyone in their fallen state would prefer to please the self in whatever way possible. So we resist whenever someone like God tells us otherwise. That’s just how we are, but that’s also why we needed a Savior.

Human Nature, Personhood, and Abortion Part 2

There was a good discussion that came out of the first part of my post, and I’d like to take the time to respond to some of the issues brought up in the comments. I haven’t had time to respond directly to some of the commenters so I figured I’d address it in a post. First, what I did say in the comments but didn’t in my post is clarify my position of human nature. So I will just repeat what I said in the comments here:

In the context of human nature, our soul is the form of the body (matter). Our soul is what makes the body alive and, because it is a rational soul, it has the powers of intellect, will, and the whatever powers the vegetative and animal souls have.

I also added that my arguments derive from an Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical view.

I had said the following:

“But the kernel, in essence, is popcorn. It has “popcornness” (haha) and thus will develop and actualize its potency given something else in aactuality brings it about. So, yes, you pointed out there was an element missing, and that was a metaphysical principle that I didn’t bring up. Namely, that for something to transition from potency to act, it cannot do so on itself but must require something else that’s already in act or actuality to bring it about by acting as an efficient cause. So, the heat would be the efficient cause of the kernel actualizing its potency of being the popcorn; the heat is that thing in actuality which the popcorn comes about.”

To which one commenter replied:

“‘But the kernel, in essence, is popcorn’

Except it isn’t. Not every instance of a kernel will become, or has the capacity to become popcorn. In fact many don’t. It’s rare that I’ll have a bag of popcorn that doesn’t have a good dozen kernels that refuse to pop. The fact that not every kernel will actualize into popcorn seems like a pretty big hole in the argument. To connect this to abortion, not every instance of an egg and sperm make it through to gestation, or becoming a fetus.”

I respond that:

It is in essence popcorn. To say that because there are kernels that don’t develop into popcorn doesn’t at all bring a hole into the argument. When we see the kernel’s that didn’t pop, we tend to think that there must have been something wrong with those kernel’s that didn’t allow them to become popcorn. If they were like other normal kernels, they would have developed. Take for example trisomy 21. This occurs when something called non-disjunction happens during mitosis–which is the dividing and multiplying of cells to make copies. When this happens, the fetus has an extra chromosome and begins developing in an unnatural way and it doesn’t develop properly. This is what happens to the kernels, except the kernels don’t develop at all for whatever reason that may be. We say that this is normal insofar that it’s a common occurrence. But it’s not normal in the sense that it should not be this way. All things being equal, the kernel would develop properly. So, if the egg and sperm do not make it through gestation, this does not affect my argument at all. Genetic issues, problems, and accidents occur that may impede development or make it unnatural.

The commenter goes on and argues:

“We can establish as a given that any woman who can produce an egg is a human being. She has rights, she will more often than not have the capacity to reason, and is in possession of any number of other qualities that we attribute to being part of the human experience. She has grown to the point of maturity, or very near it.

Now, as far as the Zygote goes, it is completely dependent on the woman. After birth, an infant may be dependent on any number of sources – a father, a family friend, an orphanage, etc. However, while in the womb, the mother is the only viable option for survival. This parasitic tendency brings up two questions for me. The first is whether or not the worth of the zygote can empirically supersede that of the woman. The woman is an actualized human, while the zygote is a potential human. I don’t accept that they are the same in any regard other than in possessing human DNA.

The second question is how you distinguish between a zygote and a wart. Beyond their DNA strands, is there a difference in the relationship? Why then is it acceptable for a woman or man to eliminate warts, but sometimes unacceptable with other parasites? They are both dependent on the mother, and both have the capacity to grow and reproduce.”

I respond:

I find this parasite argument by pro-choicers to be alarming and, quite frankly, asinine (no disrespect intended). For one, a parasite is of a different species than their host. A fetus is of the same species. A parasite is an intruder coming from the outside. The fetus is right at home and where it’s supposed to be. I can go on and on. (See here for more points and citations to textbooks)

Now, the two questions that are brought up seems to be besides the point. What does it mean to say that the zygote can empirically supersede the woman? Are you saying that because the zygote doesn’t look or seem to be like an adult, that therefore it isn’t on par with a fully grown human? If that’s the case, then we should say infants and even toddlers are not on par with adults in terms of values or rights. But, I’m just grasping at air here. This is ambiguous. Also, the commenter says the woman is an actualized human. Umm, the zygote is an actualized human as well. The zygote is not a potential human, it is human. It’s a human zygote, just like an infant is a human infant. A zygote is just one stage along the stages of development just as adolescence is one stage along development. On what grounds do you not accept that they’re the same? I’ve already given the metaphysical case.

 

 

Human Nature, Personhood, and Abortion

This is probably one of my favorite topics to discuss and debate. I’ve got a lot to learn, but I feel like I’m fairly competent in discussing this issue and giving a good pro-life case (note the weasler fairly competent). I think one of the huge points of confusion in this debate comes when using terms such as human being, human nature, personhood, humanity, and human organism. These words have very different meanings in different contexts and this only asks for an equivocation to occur. Hence why I think defining one’s terms and usage of them before ever debating the issue is extremely crucial. Otherwise, you’ll just be tripping over your words and making a mess everywhere.

Personally, I hate treating personhood as if it’s some deciding factor for an individual to be counted as a person. See, my language already is assuming that there are human beings that are not persons, and this, I think, is problematic. Sadly, the philosophical community has assumed that a “person” is just a collection of traits that make one valuable. So, what I want to do is define my terms and proceed to explain my case for the pro-life exposition using thomistic language and metaphysics. In doing so, I will demonstrate why I have such a problem with this divide over personhood. Moreover, by using a Thomistic metaphysics, I will try and show that this “personhood” issue isn’t really an issue at all.

First of all, I think it’s pretty plausible to say that at a biological level we are a human organism (well, duh). Now, I’d like to state that I equate being a human being with having a human nature or essence, and a human nature belongs with that substance that is human, i.e., a human organism. There is a substance (the human organism), that has a nature (human nature), and this nature is what makes the organism a human being.

From the get go, metaphysically speaking, a human organism is a human being because it has a human nature, and these cannot be separated. You cannot have a human organism that does not have a human nature because then the organism would not be human. Having a human nature, then, is a necessary condition of being a human organism.

Now, to address this issue of personhood and when a fetus “gains personhood”, we turn to the concepts of act and potency.  To say something is in “act” or to be actual is to describe the way something is. Feser, for example, uses a rubber ball to demonstrate this this. He explains how “among [the ball's] features are the ways it actually is: solid, round, red, and bouncy. These are different aspects of its ‘being’” (Feser 10). Potency is the way a thing potentially is. To continue Feser’s example a ball is potentially green or black if you were to paint it and it is potentially “gooey (if you melt it)” (Feser 10).

But potency just doesn’t mean a thing in actuality can possibly do anything or become anything. For something to be potential it means that the substance has these potencies built into it. Edward Feser explains it this way, “The potentialities Aristotle and Aquinas have in mind are ones rooted in a thing’s nature as it actually exists” ( Feser 11). So, while I have the potential to grow another 5 feet tall, I don’t have the potential to become a werewolf. The latter is not a potency that is a part of my nature. So potential is always inherent in the thing that is.

To take another example, a piece of chopped up wood cannot potentially be a steel ship. Why? First because the steel is an entirely different substance. The wood cannot change or become something that it does not have. To use a common sense example, I cannot give you what I do not have. The wood, however, has the potential to become a house, or an axe handle, or a wall. These things are potentialities that the wood can fulfill since its nature allows it to do so.

Now with these distinctions in place, I turn to the personhood issue and the properties that go along with it, the properties such as rationality, consciousness, self-awareness, volition, will, etc.

I’ve heard it said that a fetus might be biologically human, but it doesn’t have rationally or self-consciousness and thus doesn’t count as human. Already we have a problem here. The metaphysic is off and the assumption is that a human organism becomes a human being when it acquires some property such as rationality or self-consciousness (the common ones that are appealed to). First, I think we have plausible grounds to accept the metaphysic I’ve proposed. Scientifically we see that a human organism, from conception, if nourished properly and if it develops normally, it becomes a fully grown human organism with fully functional mental capacities. I think the substance view of human beings is quite possible. A thing or substance(human organism) contains a nature (human nature) that allows it to grow and develop into a fully functional thing (human being).

When a fetus grows into a baby, and a baby into a toddler, and the toddler into a child, why doesn’t the child gain some other property like non-rationality? Why does the child gain the property of rationality? This seems like a dull question to ask but I think it’s one that must be asked. Why doesn’t the child develop into a log cabin? Why not the property of having a butterfly mind? I think it’s very plausible to posit the answer to this as being because rationality moves from potential to actual, and potentiality can only exist in the thing itself, that is a human substance or organism.  These properties that were named earlier (rationality, self-awareness, consciousness, etc.) are actualized or gained precisely because they are potential in the substance itself. The human organism contains these properties in a state of potency, and thus they are always in the substance just waiting to be actualized. So it’s wrongheaded to try and divorce these states and say that the fetus is not human because it doesn’t have these properties actualized when the fact of the matter is these properties can only be actualized if the substance is human in the first place!

Personhood doesn’t even become an issue because, as I said earlier, personhood is inherent in the nature of a human, and during development, its properties of rationality, consciousness, and awareness is in a state of potency. Given enough time and the proper nourishment, this fetus would continue its natural development and these properties will inevitably be actualized. It’s like me grabbing the bag of popcorn kernels form my cupboard and throwing them all away. “What in the world are you doing?!” My mother screams. “This isn’t popcorn so what’s the point of having it?” I respond. “You have to heat them up. It is popcorn, you just have to let them develop.” I think a more telling action would be for me to grab the kernels out of the microwave while it’s heating up and just to throw them away since they’re not “fully popcorn”. My actions would be plain stupid and absurd. Similarly, to just abort the fetus because it hasn’t developed its rationality (or any of the other properties) is equally stupid and absurd.

The rationalization that a fetus can be aborted because it doesn’t contain personhood is completely off chart and I’ll go as far as say it’s utterly absurd. We accept our humanity yet we deny our humanity on the basis that some do not have the properties we have simply because they weren’t given the time of day to develop them. I fail to see any intellectual viability with those who are in favor of abortion. I welcome any dialogue and I look forward to it. In the mean time, popcorn anyone?

Work Cited

Feser, Edward. Aquinas: a beginner’s guide. Oxford: Oneworld, 2009. Print.

 Scroll to top