Ethical Method of John Duns Scotus

Preface. STRUGGLING WITH DECISIONS: THE CONTEMPORARY QUESTIONS

Preface STRUGGLING WITH DECISIONS THE CONTEMPORARY QUESTIONS Before we focus on some of the contemporary questions which are causing great concern for front-line practitioners, let us look for a brief moment at the contemporary questions facing Franciscan philosophers and theologians. Question: Can we take the theory of Scotus (or any of the earlier philosophers or theologians)—theories which were very much shaped by the understanding of science in their day and apply them to contemporary problems which are related to a very different understanding of science? Can we do that? Question: Can we extrapolate any universal principles from Scotus which have validity in the context of contemporary science and technology? Truth isn't neatly packaged and possessed in its entirety in any one age. It requires continual pursuit. Question: Does Scotus have anything to say about need to pursue truth? ii Question: What processes need to be developed or redeveloped to assist us in the pursuit of truth? Question: Are we wasting energy by debating, not the questions, but whether or not we should deal with the questions? We will always have "contemporary questions."—Our focus needs to be on a process that will help us to address not just today's questions but tomorrow's as well. The American Church finds herself polarized over such issues as sexual morality, abortion, sexism, social justice, etc. That's a reality partially consequent to her inculturation in a democratic society. But, if we are really a Christian Community o f Reconciliation that seeks the truth in love, we have an obligation to promote genuine dialog and reasonable moral debate both within the Church and in society at large. Question: Is there a "timidity" among contemporary Christian philosophers and theologians which is causing them to search only in safe, frozen theories of the past for solutions to today's questions? What does this say to contemporary society? What might Scotus say about this? I'm not implying that the works of past philosophers and theologians have little or no relevance for today's discussions. Of course they do! The Christian tradition is indeed rich in guidelines and principles which are of great value for the ethical reflection demanded by contemporary questioning. However, they cannot be ripped out of the context, the awareness level, in which they were written. The questions raised by today's advances in science, technology, and medical procedures call for a much deeper and Preface iii more challenging reflection on: What is life? What is human person? What is nature? What is death? Both philosophy and theology as well as the social sciences generally seem to be trailing along behind science and technology; hence the concrete, specific questions of the day are being handled all too often by politicians, legislators, business leaders, and the judicial system without the benefit of a moral consensuson what is human life, what is nature, what is death. I am asking: are we a bit too timid in developing contemporary theories? Would Scotus be timid? The decision we seem to be struggling with is: Will we accept the challenge as co–creators in our day to seek the truth in love? To focus on the contours of the road ahead instead of trying to assume its shape by what we see in the rear view mirror? Question: Do we have the courage of a Scotus to do philosophy, to do theology today? While the theologians and philosophers weigh the political wisdom of whether or not to debate the questions, the front-liners face almost daily the concrete cases needing resolution. They do indeed struggle with: "ought we." "How ought we" to use this new technology, this new medical procedure? In the fields of procreation, genetic manipulation, biological experiment, and life-sustaining procedures, everything is becoming possible. The question is: How far ought we to go? How far should we go in our efforts to keep alive a severely handicapped, deformed, and extremely frail newborn? iv How should we use the data from and unfavorable prenatal diagnosis? Does it make sense,—is it ethical to graft an animal's heart onto a newborn, or to attempt to implant a completely artificial heart in the case of irremediable insufficiency? Is there such a thing as a "right to a child?" Can it be invoked by a widow demanding insemination of her deceased husband's frozen sperm? Can it justify in vitro fertilization to benefit...