Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Assignment Title:
Signed: ______________________
INTRODUCTION
Stetson writes a scathing attack on contemporary liberalism as its
conception and application of the notion of human dignity. He does so by
describing the usage of Human Dignity in contemporary public discourse,
particularly in the United States of America, reflecting on contemporary
liberalisms application of the term and how it relates to the dominant culture.
He then contrasts his derisive assessment with his own view of human dignity
as understood in two dimensions, namely; intrinsic- and extrinsic dignity.
Stetson concludes his criticism with a reflection on the philosophical
underpinnings of contemporary liberalism, and therein lays blame for what he
calls the degradation of human life. (Stetson, 1998:19).
On Contemporary Liberalism
Contemporary liberalism, for Stetson, has resulted in a destructive
rights-saturated society, producing what he quotes Harvard Law School
Professor, Mary Ann Glendon (in Stetson, 1998:4) as describing as a
intemperate rhetoric of personal liberty, which enthusiastically embraces the
benefits of living in a democratic welfare state, but fails to adequately
recognise the resultant responsibilities and personal and civil obligations.
It is helpful to consider Stetsons view from four perspectives, namely
the Civic Life, conception of the Human Self, resultant Culture and underlying
Philosophy, which together constitute the view of human dignity in
contemporary liberalism.
Imago Dei: The Image of God in the human person through the reason, either the ratio superior as St. Thomas
understood it or the principium verbi, verbum, and amor of rational creatures as explained in Longergan (n.d.)
Culture
Instead of being tolerant and intellectually wide as they claim, He
(1998) asserts that the culture emanating from contemporary liberalism is one
of victimization and bullying, where moral permissiveness has informed a
from of entitlement that sees freedom as license as opposed to an
existential phenomena, which though profoundly personal, is yet limited by a
commitment to a social and greater good of some kind.
For Stetson, contemporary liberalism claims to hold to something of
Ciceros (Maso, S. 2009) rationality of belief, yet in their case referring to their
self-construed perception, their singularly individualised and centralised
opinionated and often rationalised conviction of their view which intolerantly
leaves no room intellectually or socially for difference of opinion. In this way,
the liberals of today, in Stetsons view, have rolled back the universalised
dignity afforded to all in society by the Stoics (Nussbaum, M. 2008), resorting
instead to an indignant rejection of the very philosophical, and oftentimes
theological, points of view that brought them liberty in the first place.
Where evil then for Aristotle, came by defect or excess (Moorhead,
n.d), for contemporary liberalism which generally recognises perversion as
relativised perception and excess as immaterial, evil is limited to that which
curtails the liberty of the one wanting to serve their passions. Virtue then, for
Ones desires, that are held in check in the pursuit of right ends, through the virtue of moderation.
the liberal, is not to be found in the mean, but in the maximum pursuit of self
actualization and gratification (Goldstein in Mitchell, 1990).
In contrast to Hagels (Cemal, n.d.) proposed capacity for self-reflection
and respectful reciprocal recognition, first of the self and thereunto of all
others and perhaps the greater other of ultimate being, the mechanism of
liberalisms self-awareness, is not as moral moderator as much as an affirmer
of superficial self-absorbed sentimentality.
Where St. Augustine (Chan, J. 2009) for instance saw human dignity to
arise out of the internalised foci of tinitarian (De Trinitate) interaction between
the minds capacity to not only exist, but to obtain knowledge and then reflect
lovingly on the knowledge it has obtained, Stetson describes liberalism as
having a notably agency-centric conception of dignity one which
emphasises libertys application in unconstrained action on the part of the
person, as the upholding source of dignitas. This is partly in keeping with the
Renaissances obsession with individual performance (Komar, n.d.), an
insatiable celebration of the wonder of the human self in life today and its
achievements, as opposed to archaic notions of ends to be pursued. This
gives rise to a culture, as Stetson has observed in other terms, which one
may imagine being populated by beings of Machiavellian (ukessays, n.d)
expedience and the materialist-human-centric optimism of Francis Bacon,
rather than proponents of the public worthiness contemplated by Hobbes
Leviathan (Bartleby, n.d).
Philosophy
For Stetson, the civic life, sense of human self and culture of
contemporary liberalism flows largely from the underlying philosophical point
of departure as it relates to Truth and individual humanity. Taking
postmodernisms deconstructive agenda to the utmost end, Stetson (1998)
sees contemporary liberalism losing all semblance of the notion of truth in
favour of a fully relativised individualism, one which views human liberty as
the Summon Bonum and the ultimate Telos of humankind.
Realpolitik from German: real realistic, practical or actual; and Politik politics) refers to politics or
diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological
notions or moralistic or ethical premises. is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral,
or Machiavellian. Accessed at: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Realpolitik.html
CONCLUSION:
While on the surface Stetsons rant against the liberalism of our day
may appear to be a weak clawing back to a lost and archaic normality, in his
reflections are to be found the work of the philosopher par excellence one
who contemplates reality contextually and reflects back to society their image,
so that consciousness and conscience may once again be reconciled. While
Stetson
does
well
to
criticise
contemporary
liberalisms
flaws
and
incoherencies, he does not adequately account for the positive aspects of the
worldview that has become increasingly hegemonic. Why did the liberals win
the culture war? Stetson does not offer an answer.
In this lies the shortcomings Stetsons own critique, the inability to
reflect accurately and in a balanced manner on the weaknesses of the
alternative that he indirectly puts forth. As we have seen, contemporary
liberalism has rejected the dualist worldview of Plato along with his notion of
the good, redeemed and aggrandised Aristotles baser appitites, crowded out
St. Augustines relationality and St. Aquinas charitable ideal, by harnessing
Mirandola, Machiavelli and Bacons humanist utilitarianism, losing sight of
Hobbes worthy vision and Kants insistence on truth within and without, even
denying Hegels conscientiousness and becoming bedfellows with Nietzsche,
only to dilute his evolutionary bestiality with universalised collectivism.
We are all wondrous humans in all our diversities both of nature and
excesses. Lets tolerate each other, starting with you, tolerating me they
may say. Stetson does well to criticise contemporary liberalism, he does less
well in offering a resolution beyond liberality.
Reference List
Stetson, B. (1998). Human dignity and contemporary liberalism. Westport, Ct,
Praeger.
Theperspectivesofnietsche.com. (n.d) The Perspectives of Nietzche. from
Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 19, R.J. Hollingdale translation. .Accessed at:
http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nmoral.html
Maso, S. 2009. Cicero and the Rationality of Belief. University of Venice, Italy.
Accessed
at:
https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/QUEST/FileStore/Issue8MARSConference/Filetoupload,
146276,en.pdf
Nussbaum, M. 2008. Human dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commission by
the Presidents Council on Bioethics. Washington D.C. Part 4. The Source of
Meaning and Dignity. Chapter 14: Human Dignity and Political Entitlements.
Accessed
at:
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/human_dignity/chapter14.html
Scandelon.co.uk. (n.d.) Philosophy of Religion. Platos From of Good.
Accessed at: http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/plato_good.htm
Schneider, N. 2009. The Self-Thinking Thought. The Opinion Pages.
Opinionator.
The
New
York
Times.
Accessed
at:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/the-self-thinking-thought/?_r=0
Sparknotes.com. (n.d) Aristotle (384-322 B.C. Nicomachean Ethics: Books I
to IV. Accessed at: http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/aristotle/section8.rhtml
Johnston. A.S. (n.d) Theory, Rationality and Relativism. Missouri Western
State
University.
Accessed
at:
https://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/tad%20web%20archive/tad203/tad20-3-fnl-pg16-28-pdf.pdf
Moorhead. (n.d.) Minnesota State University. Aritotle: Nicmachean Ethics.
Vitue as the Mean Between Two Extreme States. Accessed at:
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/AristotleVirtueAsMean.ht
m
Mitchell. S.A. 1990. Goldstein: An Appreciation. Contemporary
Psychoanalysis.
26:616-620.
Accessed
at:
http://www.wawhite.org/uploads/PDF/SMitchell-Goldstein_An_Appreciation.pdf
Longergan. B. J.F. (n.d). Concept of Verbum in the Writing of St. Thomas
Aquinas.
Jesuit
Seminary,
Toronto.
Accessed
at:
http://d1ckv7js84buaj.cloudfront.net/10/10.3/10.3.1.pdf
Kamir, O. 2002. Honour and Dignity Cultures: The Case of kavid (honour)
and kvod ha-adam (dignity) in Israeli Society and Law. In The Concept of Human
Dignity in Human Rights Law, 2002; Editors: David Kretzmer and Eckart Klein,
Kluwer, Amsterdam. Accessed at: http://www.global-report.com/kamir/a3937-honorand-dignity-cultures-the-case-of-kavod-honor-and-kvod-ha-adam-dignity-in-israelisociety-and-law
10