Look within, not up

by Ken Burrows

Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas recently opined that European laws liberalizing elective euthanasia are evidence of a growing ethical crisis in the devaluing of life. He says this is what happens when people go godless and humanity does not accept “an Authority higher than itself, an Authority that holds all life . . . infinitely valuable.”

But is deferring to a “higher authority,” which typically means God, a prerequisite for having strong ethics about life? Is such deference the most reliable solution to an ethical crisis? Or is the problem that we simply do not consistently enough adhere to the higher ethical instincts already within ourselves?

There is an additional dilemma: If humanity were to accept a “higher authority,” whose definition of such authority would we accept? Every such concept is subject to the fallibility of its earthbound interpreters. Or as a theology professor of mine once put it, whose hotline to God are you going to make your call on?

After all, from the institutional murderers of the Inquisition to the political murderers of 9/11/2001, history’s destroyers of life have often justified their actions by claiming to obey their own higher authority. Even the biblical God, presumably Thomas’ higher Authority, directed or perpetrated significant amounts of senseless slaughter. Is this a model for holding “all life infinitely valuable”?   

The fact is, although deference to God can be a motivating factor for some people in valuing lives, there is ample evidence to show that such deference does not inevitably generate this valuing. Nor is it a prerequisite, since nonbelievers are as capable of strong life values as are theists.

We should therefore seek a more universally reliable source and motive for life ethics. Fortunately, there is one. It is to practice goodness not for God’s sake but for the sake of each other. To ascribe value to the lives of fellow human beings for the simple reason that we all hold our life by the same tenure. By doing so we embrace what we all have in common and adopt values based on reason, justice, fairness, and compassion—all humanly accessible ethical principles. We do so not in deference to a nebulously defined higher authority but in concordance with the sensible rationale that a society is more whole, healthy and moral if its members value each other in these ways.

This is already part of our experience if we are sane and caring. Even theistic believers generally do not value the lives of fellow human beings only out of deference to God or to secure his rewards. They are not in the main that narrowly self-interested.

On the contrary, we all do what we do because shared responsibility for ethical behavior is a natural and noble human impulse with here-on-earth motivation. It emanates from our own higher instincts. Let’s recognize, appreciate, and cultivate this impulse. We are not, as Thomas despairingly says, morally impotent in the absence of a higher authority. We are ethically self-empowered. We honor this innate ethical impulse by accepting the moral obligations it imposes on us. When we do, we affirm that the most reliable “higher authority” we ought to accept for valuing lives will be found by looking inward, not upward.