Pablo Cirujeda
The question about human nature has been haunting humankind for long, and different authors have defined human nature in different ways. Some have argued that human beings are unique because of their spiritual dimension or soul, which makes them different from all other created beings on earth, being “capable of knowing and loving its Creator” (Gaudium et Spes, 12). Others have said that what makes us human is our ability to overcome and subdue nature: the invention of fire, clothing, agriculture, or medicine would all point to the fact that our distinguishing feature is this capacity to transform and adapt our environment to our own advantage.
St. Thomas of Aquinas once wrote that the nature of human beings is their reason, that is, our ability to think individually and to not just follow predictable instincts or behaviors. Our human nature, therefore, would urge us to use reason while making choices and not just allowing biology or the laws of nature to have it according to their own ways. Scripture tells us that human beings have been entrusted as stewards of creation in order to govern it with our rational abilities. Nature and all it contains would be at our service, not us at the service of nature.
Be it as it may, what these different approaches all have in common is acknowledging that human beings are biological by nature, but cannot be defined by biology alone. “Natural” does not simply mean “biological”. This difference, I believe, is at the heart of many debates when it comes to making choices that want to be respectful with the laws of nature.
Generally speaking, we usually do not consider altering biological events in food production, for example, as acting against nature: most of our food products, considered natural, are the result of manipulation and processing, either because they originate from transgenic seeds, or because they have been pasteurized, flavored or otherwise changed and adapted to better suit our needs. Likewise, we accept the use of energy to make our lives easier, as much as we applaud every new medical discovery that enables us to fight aging and disease more effectively.
But on the other hand, when it comes to matters concerning human ethics, we oftentimes refer to “natural law” in order to limit our choices: whatever challenges the “natural” order of things, from a biological perspective, now seems to be an aggression against creation. We seemingly have no problem in benefitting from hip replacement surgery, but claim that the process of dying should be “natural”, until the end! (Luckily, what we call natural death is full of human interference that aids the person to face this process in a more humane way.)
Emmanuel Mounier, a French philosopher of the 20th Century, believed that human nature is defined precisely by our ability to subdue nature through artificial means. For us human beings, it is only natural to interfere with the laws of nature, and thus make our life and our world more humane, rational and bearable. If we were to live a life just following the demands of our biological self and environment, that life would be extremely painful!
So, where do we draw the line? How far can we go in using artificial means to dignify human life assisted by our reason? I believe that any human action that respects life and helps us to achieve our mission of building a better world for those who will follow us is morally justified, because human nature is at its best when it challenges biology through reason to uphold the dignity of every human being.
The question about human nature has been haunting humankind for long, and different authors have defined human nature in different ways. Some have argued that human beings are unique because of their spiritual dimension or soul, which makes them different from all other created beings on earth, being “capable of knowing and loving its Creator” (Gaudium et Spes, 12). Others have said that what makes us human is our ability to overcome and subdue nature: the invention of fire, clothing, agriculture, or medicine would all point to the fact that our distinguishing feature is this capacity to transform and adapt our environment to our own advantage.
St. Thomas of Aquinas once wrote that the nature of human beings is their reason, that is, our ability to think individually and to not just follow predictable instincts or behaviors. Our human nature, therefore, would urge us to use reason while making choices and not just allowing biology or the laws of nature to have it according to their own ways. Scripture tells us that human beings have been entrusted as stewards of creation in order to govern it with our rational abilities. Nature and all it contains would be at our service, not us at the service of nature.
Be it as it may, what these different approaches all have in common is acknowledging that human beings are biological by nature, but cannot be defined by biology alone. “Natural” does not simply mean “biological”. This difference, I believe, is at the heart of many debates when it comes to making choices that want to be respectful with the laws of nature.
Generally speaking, we usually do not consider altering biological events in food production, for example, as acting against nature: most of our food products, considered natural, are the result of manipulation and processing, either because they originate from transgenic seeds, or because they have been pasteurized, flavored or otherwise changed and adapted to better suit our needs. Likewise, we accept the use of energy to make our lives easier, as much as we applaud every new medical discovery that enables us to fight aging and disease more effectively.
But on the other hand, when it comes to matters concerning human ethics, we oftentimes refer to “natural law” in order to limit our choices: whatever challenges the “natural” order of things, from a biological perspective, now seems to be an aggression against creation. We seemingly have no problem in benefitting from hip replacement surgery, but claim that the process of dying should be “natural”, until the end! (Luckily, what we call natural death is full of human interference that aids the person to face this process in a more humane way.)
Emmanuel Mounier, a French philosopher of the 20th Century, believed that human nature is defined precisely by our ability to subdue nature through artificial means. For us human beings, it is only natural to interfere with the laws of nature, and thus make our life and our world more humane, rational and bearable. If we were to live a life just following the demands of our biological self and environment, that life would be extremely painful!
So, where do we draw the line? How far can we go in using artificial means to dignify human life assisted by our reason? I believe that any human action that respects life and helps us to achieve our mission of building a better world for those who will follow us is morally justified, because human nature is at its best when it challenges biology through reason to uphold the dignity of every human being.
