globalization and universality by mantzarides.pdf

7/27/2019 Globalization and Universality by Mantzarides.pdf

1/10

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:

On: 19 August 2010

Access details: Access Details: Free Access

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Christian BioethicsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713721527

Globalization and Universality: Chimera and TruthGeorgios Mantzarides

Online publication date: 09 August 2010

To cite this Article Mantzarides, Georgios(2002) 'Globalization and Universality: Chimera and Truth', Christian Bioethics,8: 2, 199 207

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1076/chbi.8.2.199.8752URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/chbi.8.2.199.8752

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713721527http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/chbi.8.2.199.8752http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1076/chbi.8.2.199.8752http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713721527


2/10

Christian Bioethics 1380-3603/02/0802-199$16.002002, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 199207 # Swets & Zeitlinger

Globalization and Universality: Chimera and Truth

Georgios MantzaridesSchool of Theology, University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

I. BIOETHICS, THE ETHICS OF GLOBALIZATION

One of the heritages that the past centuries left us is contemporary bioethics: ascience with a great possibility for knowledge and very limited content. This

phenomenon should not be considered a paradox if we take into consideration

that this science is called to coordinate the most disparate opinions on crucialand debatable issues of human life. For this reason, there is an abundance of

literature on problems of bioethics, while the conclusions drawn are poor.The eld of bioethics appeared in the frontline of the scientic interest

during the 60's. Research on human life is considered primarily as its subject.

Indeed, bioethics is involved in all problems of classical as well as modern

medical ethics concerning human life. The reason that brought bioethics in thefrontline of interest is the rapid development of biology and its application to

medicine. Thus, bioethics is presented as an expansion of medical ethics andfocuses its interest on problems created mainly by the intrusion of biology and

application of modern medical technology to the entire process of the

beginning, growth and ultimate end of human life.More specically, bioethics examines the ethical problems which are

connected with: a) sterility, assisted reproduction, articial insemination,

prenatal examination, birth control, abortion and other related problems, b) the

interventions for preserving or improving human life, cloning, receipt andtransplantation of tissues and organs, and c) dealing with the last phase of life,

passive and active euthanasia and other relevant issues.More precisely, the examination of the aforementioned problems forms the

subject of biomedical ethics, because bioethics is expanded to the entire living

Address correspondence to: Georgios Mantzarides, Ph.D., School of Theology, University of

Thessaloniki, University Campus 54006, Thessaloniki, Greece.

DownloadedAt:19:

3819August2010


3/10

world and examines the relationships of man with this world. Since bio-

medical ethics forms the most important section of bioethics, the name

``bioethics'' is customarily used when referring to biomedical ethics. Finally,many people extend the interests of this science beyond the living world byincluding the whole environment and environmental issues which are

associated with the various areas of human life.

It is natural for the confrontation of bioethical as well as ethical problems

to be determined by a respective anthropology or even cosmology. When thereis a commonly accepted basis regarding man and the world, then it is natural

that a respective agreement on the confrontation and solution of bioethical

problems be reached. However, when there is no common basis, many

differences and oppositions appear as a result.Within the contemporary multi-cultural and globalizing society, the

differences and oppositions on anthropological and cosmological issues are

many and essential. These phenomena are intense even within the areas that

have received inuence from Christian tradition. In fact, here, the differences

and oppositions, become more signicant by the spreading and prevalence ofsecularization which takes away from man and the world every transcendental

dimension and perspective.

Bioethics, by attempting to prevent and control the more generaldevelopments created by the rapid growth of biology and medical technology,

is moving almost exclusively on an impersonal level. It objecties proceduresand regards human beings as numbers. It tries to deal with general situations

and not with persons or interpersonal relations. It focuses its interest on the

examination of unprecedented problems and looks to solve them on a

universal level based on very general principles. For this reason, when it is notexpressed within the context of a religious denomination or faith, it sets aside,

as much as it can, the religious, metaphysical or other views of the world and

attempts to rely on utilitarian principles or values which may become morewidely accepted. Hence, the following principles are projected in bioethics: a)

autonomy, b) avoidance of causing damage or pain, c) benevolence and d)justice (see Baumgartner, 1998, p. 65; Beauchamp, 1993, p. 9; Brinbacher,

1993, p. 53; Koios, 2000, p. 844).

These principles, which are usually interpreted from various angles, are

proved to be exible or controversial in practice. In addition, nowadays theloosening of ethical principles and values in society is also a fact. Even

conditions contrary to nature, such as homosexuality, are recognized as natural

and become established. When man is denuded from every spiritual property

200 GEORGIOS MANTZARIDES

DownloadedAt:19:

3819August2010


4/10

and is identied with his biological functions, all these things follow and are

considered normal.

Given these facts, anthropology still remains the principal basis of bioethicsupon which contemporary medicine is founded. This anthropology, whichis essentially foreign to Christian anthropology, is mechanistic and one-

dimensional. But it is natural for a mechanistic and one-dimensional

anthropology to be unable to support real ethics. Ethics is always considered

as a movement from being to well being. When being is regarded mecha-nistically and one-dimensionally, then well being is simply considered as a

mechanistic or eudaemonistic development of being and not as a qualitative or

spiritual growth.

Bioethics, being a pragmatic science (see Bernard, 1996, p. 72), tries toapproach often by gasping or observing from a distance the scienticdevelopment in medicine and biology in order to formulate suggestions which

will support their positive sides and limit their negative ones. The speed and

perplexity of these developments, however, often hinder the complete

understanding of things and the formulation of mature proposals. Thus,bioethics appears usually as rolling and constantly changing ethics which is

guided by research laboratories, assessed by political and nancial factors and

promoted by informatics and the mass media. It has no difculty in acceptingeuthanasia, acknowledging abortions as a means of therapy or serving

eugenics and, thus, promoting racism.The various bioethics committees, despite their conscientious efforts, are

restricted to a counseling role, as it is natural, which inuences very little the

ow of things. Their chief practical effect is the inuence they can exercise on

the formation of legislation or the enlightenment of the wider public. Thelatter applies more to religious bioethics committees and the impact of their

positions on the faithful. Finally, the religious and metaphysical viewpoints or

beliefs about the world and inhibitions that function within society or theresearchers themselves are of utmost importance and place things under an

expressly ethical perspective and create essential ethical questioning. Theseare regarded, however, within the wider system as transient phenomena, which

are attributed to social or psychological remnants and are pushed aside by the

new customs.

Here we see a basic parameter of ethics being activated that is linked withits very name: custom. Ethos is directly related to usage, namely custom.

(Also, the word ethos (which is a Greek word) derives etymologically from the

Greek word synethia which means usage.) Respectively, ethics is connected

GLOBALISATION AND UNIVERSALITY 201

DownloadedAt:19:

3819August2010


5/10

directly to custom. The purpose of ethics was always to help man acquire good

customs since his young age. The identity of ethics, however, was not located

in the custom itself, but in its quality. And this tends to be forgotten.Today, custom is considered by many people an adequate reason for

justifying any practice, when this presents some kind of usefulness.

Especially, when ethical reactions appear on issues concerning the application

of modern medical technology, the technocrats ignore them and consider them

as secondary obstacles that will be pushed aside by the new custom. Indeed,almost all reactions, which are created at times for ethical reasons by the

applications of medical technology, recede immediately, while the latter

prevail as routine applications even if they oppose basic religious or ethical

principles. Something equivalent exists also in the broader area of social andpolitical life. It sufces to promote a certain illegality so as to make it a customand legalized it. When we take into consideration the faster rhythm of changes

in the eld of biomedical applications as well as the guided information of the

public, it becomes obvious that the customs which are created are chimeric

and, basically, unaffected by the testing of time. Simultaneously, thepromotion of religious principles or commandments is characterized by the

representatives of secular bioethics as fundamentalism and is looked down

upon or ridiculed. However, all these proclaim the loosening of the ethicalconscience and a deep spiritual crisis.

Finally, it is characteristic that bioethics today tends to displace completelyclassical ethics that has as its main subject the personal life and interpersonal

relationships of human beings. Besides, the real displacement of ethics began

long ago within a theological frame by its detachment from the so-called

spirituality and then by the autonomy and almost exclusive promotion ofsocial ethics. So, while social ethics was projected in the West since the mid of

last century, later on the western theologians who were involved in ethics

became almost exclusively interested in bioethics. This is already beingpromoted more widely as the ethics of globalisation; namely, as the ethics that

attempts to connect human beings with various tendencies and viewpointsbefore the speculations on applications of contemporary medicine and biology

and to promote the homogenization of the criteria to confront them. At the

same time, the view that the ethical life of man is determined biologically is

also being cultivated.This phenomenon does not provoke special impression, but is considered

natural because it is supported also by the ideology of contemporary science

(Lewontin, 1993, pp. 31f.). The process of globalization with all its positive


DownloadedAt:19:

3819August2010


6/10

and negative elements, its chimeric nature and usefulness forms the climate

within which this mentality grows. Happiness and unhappiness, life and

health, prosperity and failure are examined and estimated by quantities andnumbers. Moreover, many researchers of bioethics attribute the ethical andsocial manifestations of man, but also his very civilization, to the biochemical

functions of human genes (see Wilson, 2000, pp. 21, 124130).1 In this way,

human society is identied with the amount of individuals it includes and

these, in turn, with the amount of their genes. How could anyone today ignorethis logic or detach it from his life? And how could someone think ethically or

behave socially by ignoring these facts?

Bioethics, as the deontology of globalization, is directly linked with the

tradition of secularized Christianity of the West and, especially, to westernethics. It is an ethics with a legal character, such as the western ethics that arepart of its basis. The general principles it projects do not constitute ultimately

points of convergence of human beings but ``vaulting horses'' of individual

oppositions. There are similar to the principles of the so-called social ethics

which can be interpreted and applied depending on the interests and desires ofthose in power.

Of course, in the eld of ethics there was always the tendency to promote

general and panhuman principles for shaping the human ethos. This isobserved also in Christian ethics with its well-known golden rule: ` So

whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them'' (Matt 7:12).However, this general rule of Christian ethics is explicitly different from the

rules and principles that are projected in bioethics.

By this golden rule, man is called to place himself in the position of the

other person and act towards him in a way that he would have liked the otherperson to act towards himself. In other words, the golden rule is addressed to

the human person and is activated by the understanding and compassion of the

other person. It cultivates closeness and sets aside isolation. It creates unityand turns away disruption.

The same does not apply to the principles of bioethics; more accurately, theexact opposite exists. When the rst principle of bioethics, the principle of

autonomy, is absolutised, it does not bring human beings close to each other

but isolates them; it does not unite them, but disrupts them. Certainly, this

principle seems to respect the distinctiveness of each individual. However, thisrespect is proven de facto to be chimeric, since it is not possible for the

principle of autonomy of the individual to be placed rst when society needs

unity and has nowhere to support it. If the individual is absolutised society is


DownloadedAt:19:

3819August2010


7/10

disrupted. For this reason, those in authority project their arbitrariness as a

unifying factor of society. And the laws come to restrict this arbitrariness. On

the level of ethics, however, absolutizing autonomy and placing it before everyother collective concept or value leads to confusion and incoherence.

Certainly, Christian ethics also has autonomy as its ideal. However,

autonomy is not realized by the individual's juxtaposition to society, but

comes as a fruit of the ethical and spiritual maturity of man by following the

double commandment of love. Man becomes autonomous by shattering hisegoism, embracing his neighbor and by, ultimately, unifying within him the

entire theanthropic being (Sophrony, 1996, p. 159). Thus, its perfection as a

person is realized.

In the Orthodox Church, it is natural for the problems of bioethics to beplaced within the frame of Christian ethics. Besides, from the very beginning,the ethical teaching of the Church dealt also with matters of bioethics such as

abortion, euthanasia or infanticide (see Breck, 1998, p. 6; Engelhardt, 2000,

pp. 7ff.). This means that they ought to be examined on the same basis and

within the same perspective that ethical matters are examined. Within thiscontext, one could also speak about Christian ethics. Namely, the discrimina-

tion of bioethics from the ethics within the Church cannot have the meaning of

autonomy and autotelic consideration of the rst by the latter but solely oftheir methodological differentiation. Hence, the confrontation of bioethical as

well as ethical matters ought to be based on Orthodox Christian anthropologyand cosmology. It ought to regard its problems within the perspective of man's

theosis in Christ and of the restoration of the world.

A basic precondition of ethical behavior for man is that he is not the cause

of his existence but ``has the being borrowed'' (Maximos the Confessor).When man is not conscious of this, it is natural to exceed his limits and deify

himself. Besides, the utmost principle of Christian ethics is the hypostatic

beginning or the beginning of the person, from which the more specicprinciples and methodologies of ethics and social life derive their meaning and

functionality.The human person does not constitute a static fact but a dynamic process.

This begins from the moment of conception and expands in innity. However,

innity for Christianity is not impersonal or super personal but a Person. More

accurately, it is a Trinity of Persons. Finally, the birth of man and his growthpresuppose and express communion. The person cannot be considered as an

isolated individual because it always exists in communion. And true com-

munion is realized within the theanthropic communion, the Church. Before


DownloadedAt:19:

3819August2010


8/10

the danger of man being buried as a person underneath the pile of his genes,

the Orthodox Christian ethics presents its unlimited perspective of his

perfection and theosis.Christian ethics grows and develops within the human person. Its character

that focuses on the human person, surely, is not in harmony with the beliefs

that prevail in the eld of bioethics. It is natural for the principles and

methodology of bioethics to be regarded critically from the Christian view-

point. Orthodox bioethics can help contemporary bioethics more as anti-bioethics; as ethics that sees man and his problems within a transcendental

perspective. It can project the inestimable value of the person and remind of

the spherical character of life that is forgotten through the one-dimensional

consideration of life. Finally, by focusing on the human person, it cancontribute to a better application of the principles projected in bioethics.

The view that science is in a position to lead man to an ethical

determination of his life is false. On the other hand, however, correct ethical

judgement also needs the correct scientic background. More specically, in

regards to bioethical matters the responsible updating of the public isnecessary. Every use or avoidance of the means and possibilities offered by

modern biotechnology and genetic engineering needs special updating.

Science itself is unable to lead to ethical conclusions; likewise, ethics is alsounable to respond correctly to contemporary speculation without the required

scientic information.Human life is not consumed on the biological level but has a spiritual

level, too. Besides, this is where its ethical character is revealed. This ethical

character of life is not only cultivated within smooth and pleasant biological

situations and functions, but also within unpleasant and problematic ones.Within the world, the distinctiveness of man as a logic being with free will

determines, on one hand, the catholic consideration of life and, on the other

hand, the responsible assessment and confrontation of its specic factors.Pleasure and afiction, the two basic poles around which life revolves, do not

exist in order to incapacitate but to ensure the correct function of logic and freewill of man.

The virus of globalization, namely money, which makes pleasure and

comfort easy, is the means by which the one-dimensional version of bioethics

is consolidated. Money and, more precisely, easy prot, holds a prevailingposition, especially, in the exploitation of the environment and the modi-

cation of the nutritional means where the negative consequences of man's

interventions do not become directly noticeable. Also in the eld of


DownloadedAt:19:

3819August2010


9/10

biomedicine, scientic research and applications are determined to a great

extent by the nancial and political interests of those in power.

The mission of bioethics within this context does not only lie in thepromotion of principles that will place certain barriers and restrictions on thearbitrariness of the political, nancial and other factors. Since the power and

the involvement of these factors in the process of globalisation are proved

catalytic for ethical values and principles, the only real hope may rely on the

human person. When selessness, love and ethical sensitivity grow in theperson and when the person starts to live the life of the spirit, then the one-

dimensional ethics is pushed aside.

In this way, the spherical approach to earthly life begins to become feasible

and its spiritual and eternal dimensions to open up. It becomes clear that manis not only his genes. It is understood that pain and disease do not constitutefatal evils that can extinguish man, but they are offered as possibilities than

can operate positively for his completion as a person and a member of society.

Thus, the true participation in the pain of our neighbour becomes possible and

forms an essential factor of social life and social cohesion.Within this perspective, contemporary bioethics, too, can perceive a

dimension so far unknown to it. It can become interested in the spiritual eld

and render a more substantial content to its loose principles. It can eventransfer the center of its gravity from objects and impersonal procedures to

persons and personal relationships.

NOTE

1. For a critical viewpoint of this position see Lewontin (1993, pp. 37ff.).

REFERENCES

Baumgartner, H.M. (1998). Prinzipein. In: W. Korf, L. Beck, and P. Kikat (Eds.), Lexikon derBieothik. Gutersloch: Gutersloher Verlagshaus.

Beauchamp, L.T. (1993 November/December). The principles approach. Hastings CenterReport, Special Supplement, 9, 59.

Bernard, J. (1996). Bioethics (E. Spanos, Trans.). Athens Katoption.Breck, J. (1998). Bioethical dilemmas and orthodoxy. Synaxis, 68, 171187.Brinbacher, D. (1993). Welche Ethik ist als Bioethik tauglich? In: J. Ach (ed.),

Herausforderung der Bioethik. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: A. Gaidgt.


DownloadedAt:19:

3819August2010


10/10

Engelhardt, H.T. (2000). The foundations of Christian bioethics. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Koios, N. (2000). Viewing the principles of bioethics within the light of Orthodox ethical

thought. Gregory Palamas, 83, 835859.

Lewontin, R. (1993). Biology as ideology: The dogma of DNA. New York: HarperPerennial.Maximos the Confessor, Interpretation of ``Our Father'', PG 90, 893C.Sophrony, A. (Sacharof). (1996). Ascesis and theory. Essex, England: Stavropegic Monastery of

St. John the Baptist.Wilson, E. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press.


DownloadedAt:19:

3819August2010

globalization and universality by mantzarides.pdf

Documents