Human Dignity and Bioethics

216 | Richard John Neuhaus
misleading and deceptive. Clearly, “light”—i.e., wisdom, knowledge,
truth, guidance—is what we desire. Since the subject is bioethics, the
kind of light we are looking for is ethical or moral light.
We need not enter into the debate over whether there is a qualitative
difference between the ethical and moral. It is argued by some
that the ethical deals with right and wrong while the moral deals with
good and evil, with right and wrong being defined by us while good
and evil are discovered in the way things really are. With respect to
the actions addressed by bioethics, perhaps all can agree that the goal
is to do the right thing, with most claiming that the right thing is the
moral thing. In the history of Western civilization’s reflection on ethics
and morality, the most elementary maxim is, “Do good and avoid
evil.” For purposes pertinent to the questions addressed by bioethics,
this can also be phrased as “Do right and avoid wrong.” The first
principle of practical (moral) reason, in obedience to that maxim, is
to direct one’s will in accord with the human good.
To be sure, it is argued by some that in some circumstances it
is permissible to do evil—a “necessary evil,” as it is called—in order
to do the right thing, meaning in order to achieve the right result.
This touches on the divide between the utilitarian and deontological
lamented by Dr. Schulman. From one viewpoint, it is at least doubtful
that an act is evil if it is indeed necessary to achieving a good (i.e.,
doing the right thing). From another viewpoint, assuming that good
and evil are antithetical, it is allowed that good may result from an
act or course of action that will foreseeably result in a circumstance
that it would be wrong to intend, but the good result is despite and
never because of the doing of evil. The relevance of this brief excursus
on the distinction between ethics and morality, including the distinction
between right and wrong, on the one hand, and good and evil,
on the other, will become evident in due course.
The stated subject is the usefulness of the concept “human dignity.”
The better phrase is “the dignity of the human person.” “Human
dignity” may suggest the collective and include efforts such as taking
technological charge of the evolution of the human species. “The dignity
of the human person” places the accent on the individual, albeit,
to be sure, the individual situated in community. The dignity of the
human person may entail an important, although limited, measure
of autonomy. Dignity as autonomy features strongly in, for instance,