Opportunity Lost: The Cost of Denying Self-Authentication

English 1101: Paper Three
June 15th, 2009

Many philosophers and scientists have tried to define in simple layman terms what it is that makes the human race different, and specifically, why we as a rule are so vehemently against the mistreatment of other humans and why we are so anxious to punish wrongful death so severely. Even when death is an accident it creates an acute sense of loss, and when it is a young person or a child this loss is amplified many times over. So what exactly is it that is lost when a human being dies? In understanding this, it is useful to analyze what writers have done with their most endearing science fiction tales. What the success of their books and movies have taught us is that before readers and movie goers will become emotionally attached to a machine, the author or screenwriter must first demonstrate that the machine has awakened to the fact that it has the potential to become something greater than the sum of its parts, which is the process of self-actualization, and with this perspective it is easy to see why we as humans mourn death and why the loss of the toddler is felt much more deeply than the loss of the senile senior citizen.

In his book, Our Posthuman Future, in an excerpt from the chapter entitled “Human Dignity”, Francis Fukuyama weakly defends this idea of a human ability to self-actualize when he argues for the existence of a Factor X. In his opinion, it is because of this component of humanity that we as a race demand that every life be respected (Fukuyama 83). Regardless of race, gender, skin color, or any other defining physical trait, Fukuyama argues that it is this Factor X that makes it so difficult to subject any human to any kind of mistreatment, but his effort falls far short of making a defensible argument. While the concept of a Factor X is perfectly defensible, there are two explanations for Fukuyama’s failure to defend it. First, Fukuyama essentially gave the religious fundamentalists their talking points so that they could claim that it was their “God” who created this Factor X (84), and second, he takes an all or nothing stand against the “modern natural science” notion that if we are a product of pure evolution, then a Factor X cannot exist (85). He even goes so far as to explain in detail why taking the purely scientific approach would have serious “consequences” (86). His only concession to the intelligent design idea was when he spoke of how, in 1996, Pope John Paul II agreed to evolution only with the caveat that when we as a race were sufficiently evolved, God created the “human soul” to possess those bodies (93). He essentially told the scientists to follow the lead of the Catholic Church so that they (the scientists) would concede that we have this Factor X. Even by the end of his article Fukuyama defended this as he explained the position that John Searle took. Fukuyama first asserts Searle’s argument that consciousness can be understood without believing in “dualistic ontology or abandon[ing] the scientific framework of material causation,” and he then affirms the existence of his Factor X by stating that to acknowledge it does not “require recourse to the direct intervention of God.” Fukuyama then negated any ground that he might have gained within the scientific community by stating in the next line, “It does not, on the other hand, rule it out, either” (Fukuyama 101).

If Fukuyama had taken the stance that it was our need to self-actualize, rather than the existence of a “consciousness” that created his Factor X, it would have stopped the Abrahamic religions from confiscating his work and in so doing minimizing or even negating the usefulness of the Factor X idea by the non-religious and scientific communities. He came close to this when he stated that every human is possessed of a “genetic endowment that allows him or her to become a whole human being,” but once again he continues on using the Christian code words “moral choice” as he strives to expand on that (102). Later, on that same page, he confuses the reader by stating “we will be constantly tempted to think that we understand what ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emotions are, and that [with bio-engineering] we can do nature one better by suppressing the latter” (102). Based on the prior twenty pages of his writing, whether intentional or not, one is lead to think that he is deliberately pitting the religious against the natural scientist, which leaves one to wonder why he even bothered framing his argument in a way that it would be so polarizing in the first place. The world did not need one more article to explain why scientists are seen as the enemy by the religious fundamentalists.

All three of the Abrahamic religions believe that an omnipotent God granted us first a soul and then our agency for the term of our mortality, so for them it naturally follows that it is in their own best interest to secure enough political influence so that their religion alone can define what this Factor X is and who is possessed of it, or, that is to say, what is “good” and what is “bad.” When a religious group succeeds in doing this the nation’s judicial system, by means of a judge and jury, gets to legislate who it is that has broken their God ordained laws and in the process will have forfeited their Factor X. This is what took place in the case of Terri Schiavo. Figuratively speaking, the courts debated for seven years whether or not her body still retained its Factor X. Religious fundamentalists tried to persuade the judicial system to adopt their narrow views, all the while keeping Mrs. Schiavo in a perpetual vegetative state (Wikipedia 10 Jun 09). The irony is that during that same period, dozens of fully-conscious and functional death-row inmates were subjected to capital punishment and put to death, a practice that is fully supported by these same Christian fundamentalists and still legal in 35 American states. Terri Schiavo had no consciousness and no chance of advancing in her self-actualization, but there is a great deal that an inmate on death row can do to improve his lot in life and leave an enduring legacy for humanity, even if he will never see the light of day again. We don’t even dare to count the number of wrongful death sentence convictions that occurred before the advent of the modern DNA test.

If we can get away from the Factor X argument and move toward the idea that the possibility to self-actualize is what creates the value in human life, then it makes it more difficult for the religious to dominate the scene and legislate their desired outcomes. It would mean that they would have to prove that certain classes of humanity have less of an ability to self-actualize and thereby should be seen as inferior. To this end, the religious extremists would have to leverage this and argue that this inferiority is connected to the non-belief in an omnipotent God by this class of people. This logic worked well for the Crusades and Holy Wars of the Middle Ages, and we saw this logic clearly illustrated by Kwame Anthony Appiah when he wrote about how oppressive cultures of the world dominated, and often eliminated, other cultures. Appiah related how 19th century Britain (a white Christian nation) justified the “collection” of artifacts from the palace of the Asante people (a black tribal group of Ghana). By quoting Lord Baden-Powell’s 1896 writings, Appiah made it clear that Baden-Powell had justified his actions because he was doing his work “in a barbarian king’s palace” (Appiah 2). The 19th century Christian mentality had not moved too far away from the holy wars, and Ghana (then known as Gold Coast) had been conquered and was made into a crown colony in 1874. Even though Ghana achieved independence in 1957, the nations culture had been decimated and Ghana remains 69% Christian to this day (Wikipedia 10 Jun 09). All of this oppression had been done because first, not only did the white Christian culture refuse to recognize the validity of a tribal belief system, but they also failed to grant any of Fukuyama’s Factor X to these people unless they were willing to convert to Christianity. If instead the litmus test had been to allow all people to accomplish their own version of self-actualization, then it would have been more difficult to justify the oppression of other peoples.

This is not a phenomenon of past centuries. In his essay, “The Dark Art of Interrogation,” Mark Bowden explains the downward spiral of the American people when, after the tragedy of 9/11, the majority in the Christian world felt that any person who was suspected of being an al Queda operative could be subjected to torture (Bowden 65). Yes, these terrorists had sworn to destroy the western culture, and this was a blanket statement meant to include just about anything Christian, but we already knew that they also despised the Jewish people. In the post 9/11 environment it did not matter that we had not even granted any captured al Queda suspect the benefit of a proper trial to determine if they were guilty of a crime before we tortured them. In the minds of a few, the simple fact that a person looked like an Arab, wore a turban, or professed an Islamic faith was enough reason to ostracize them and accuse them of being an enemy of America. The story of Murat Kurnaz, a Turkish citizen but legal resident of Germany is a case in point. He spent five years in a Guantanamo cell just because his appearance and circumstances fit the profile noted above (Wikipedia 15 Jun 09). A culture or class of people can only justify this behavior if they diminish the value of the “Factor X” possessed by others. In a post 9/11 world, many moderates in the Islamic faith throughout the world felt this kind of contempt from fundamentalist Christians, and in this unhealthy climate very few Christians took the time to find out if their Muslim neighbors were moderates who respected the right of others to worship how, what, and whom they may.

If there is a polar opposite to the religious fundamentalist in the debate over the existence of a Factor X, then it would be the atheist student of natural science. These scientists support the work of geneticists as they strive to decode and manipulate human DNA. Fukuyama postulates what might happen once they make sufficient advances in science to the degree that we will have the capacity to engineer our own offspring, and beyond that he also foresees the possibility of allowing the human consciousness to be seen as nothing more than a product of a pre-defined cause-and-effect science (Fukuyama 97). A serious student of this topic might be left to surmise that this concerns Fukuyama because it would lead to God being left out of the debate, and that would be a good thing! When that happens, the argument of what is human nature, and thereby Factor X, is opened up for an entirely new definition. If the ability to self-actualize is the test, does it really matter how the child was conceived? Isn’t it more desirable that every human be resistant to cancer and avoid the physical handicaps of birth defects? In much the same way that science has eliminated smallpox, the future holds many more possibilities in improving the quality and longevity of life.

Many will try to claim synonyms for Factor X and call it our essence, our conscience, our human nature, or our human dignity. Something truly does exist, but not in the way that Fukuyama tries to define it. It also will not cease to exist just because science tries to will it away as an accident, and likewise, nobody for any reason can forfeit it or deny that another has a right to retain it. Humanity will continue to evolve, and religions will increasingly be seen as on the wrong side of history as modernization instinctively attracts an ever more liberal interpretation of what Factor X is. When seen as the culmination of Darwin’s evolution, not just in body but in mind as well, it will become self-evident that the loss we feel when someone dies is really just the sense that the world and everything in it was denied the opportunity to witness the potential that this person could have experienced in their own self-actualization. It is for this reason that the loss of a child or brilliant student or leader is felt differently than that of a senile senior citizen who had already experienced a productive life, or a person in a vegetative state living on life support.

If scientists argue that we are accidents of nature, and religious extremists argue that their vengeful God only grants us a conditional claim on our right to our soul, then in fact the truth must lie somewhere on the scale in between. Using this “middle ground” logic will help resolve many ethical debates. For example, if an expectant mother has this Factor X that Fukuyama talks about, but becomes aware of a genetic defect in the unborn child, then will the rights of an unborn fetus trump that of the mother? The unborn fetus has no opportunity at life, or put another way, to self-actualize, until it is an entity unto itself. Until then, only one entity (the host) can make the decision about what self-actualization means. This is the fundamental right that her humanity grants to her and it is her decision alone to make. Naturally she also must assume the consequences for what her decision means to the unborn fetus.

Rigid natural science does not provide all of the answers, and because fundamentalist religions make little or no effort to expand their boundaries with changing times, they will not provide the answers for a changing humanity either. Humanism is a term that can encapsulate the philosophical middle ground, and it is here that all of the answers will be found. Scientists will continue to push the envelope for unfettered exploration and experimentation and religious fundamentalists will strive to keep all life within the confines set out in the purportedly 2000 year old Abrahamic texts. Neither position can be allowed to prevail. Even still, throughout the process of finding balance there will be one certainty, which is, that the instinctive quest for each human being to find his or her own purpose in life will conquer every attempt to suppress it.

Works Cited

Fukuyama, Francis, “Human Dignity.” Emerging – A Reader 2nd ed. Ed. Barclay Barrios. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. (81-109).

Wikipedia, “Terri Schiavo”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Shiavo, web 10 Jun 09.

Appiah, Kwame Anthony, “Whose Culture Is It, Anyway?” Emerging – A Reader 2nd ed. Ed Barclay Barrios. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. (1-16).

Wikipedia, “Ghana”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana, web 10 Jun 09.

Bowden, Mark, “The Dark of Interrogation.” Emerging – A Reader 2nd ed. Ed. Barclay Barrios. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. (31-65).

Wikipedia, “Murat Kurnaz”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz, web 15 Jun 09.