Pillar

The Human Person

The first pillar of a decent society is respect for the human person, which recognizes that all individual human beings have dignity simply because of the kind of being they are: animals whose rational faculties allow them to know, love, reason, and communicate. It also recognizes that human beings are persons, members of the human family who flourish in a community that respects their fundamental rights and who long to discover transcendent truths about the nature of reality.

Learn more about the Human Person: get your free eBook today!

Before we indulge in more time online, it is worth considering whether the images flashing on that screen are ultimately pointing us toward the humanity and healing power of Christ or a disfigured version of the kind of body a technocratic culture wishes us to have.
We are not machines and cannot be well formed by them either. Human formation should be primarily human—even if it’s easier and faster to dole out our questions to a machine.
Right-wing young men see a politics and culture that celebrates every identity but theirs, cultivates a totalitarian ideological culture that directly undermines their beliefs, desires, and life goals, and is set to leave them significantly worse off—socially, economically, culturally, spiritually—than their grandparents. Any successful attempt to reach these young men will need to seriously address these deeply rooted sentiments. 
Let us do our duty. Let us slam shut and then nail shut the Overton Window on anti-Semitism and thereby help give our country a new birth of freedom rightly understood.  
What is the nature of human dignity? What is it to act justly towards another human being? For Augustine, the answer is that justice towards another human being is a matter of recognizing God’s image in them, and all that follows from that, the deep solidarity and communion that arises from this.
The physician-assisted suicide debate is not a discussion about legalizing suicide or even about granting people the legal ability to assist in another’s suicide. Rather, the physician-assisted suicide movement is about an alleged “right” to end one’s life with the help of licensed medical practitioners, whose field is predicated on preserving life.  
There is not—in literature or in life—the well-formed male equivalent of an Anne of Green Gables or a Jo March. Those girls live to read. For boys, it works best the other way around.
The real work of healing consists not in closing off the body as a personal project but in opening our body to healthy relationships we can have with each other, our environment, and ultimately the highest vocations of love and worship.
What might have seemed like the next progressive triumph-in-waiting is instead running off the rails. How? Why?
Death Revisionism—including the kind Drs. Jauhar, Patel, and Smith propose—is not an ethically viable option. Of that, I think, we can be relatively confident. Of the options that remain, however, there is not one that asserts itself as the obvious alternative.
I agree with Professor Tollefsen that we should seek a morally consistent approach to organ donation, and one that does not involve intentional killing. I also agree that this leads us to the conclusion that existing criteria for ethical organ donation after cardiac death are untenable. These patients don’t seem to be dead in any metaphysical sense and so it is difficult to say that the Dead Donor Rule is being respected in these cases.  
Our public policy should be based on the biological truth about death, and the moral truths governing permissible and impermissible actions. We should not let policy desires drive our factual claims about when death takes place. 
Whatever else one might say about the therapy bans in question, they undeniably burden the free exercise of religion for same-sex-attracted or gender-confused persons who seek not to identify with or live according to those conditions.
The whole world is God’s creation, an expression of his love. The truth about ourselves as dependent creatures who he loves, whom he sent his Son to redeem, is out there for us. We can blind ourselves to it, we can ignore it, but it’s very loud. And the more we help each other see it, the happier we will ultimately be. 
Art is useless, and perhaps that is why it’s meaningful.
In a culture that has forgotten the sacred, to see with the eyes of moral imagination is a quiet revolution. And it is one my generation desperately needs. 
My generation needs help discerning what the good life truly is.
I wish my elders knew that, in the face of what seems to be an increasingly frightening technocratic reality, we want to live free from deceit and as true humans. 
If stillborn children could inspire one of the most-loved children’s books in the twentieth century, then maybe a grandpa with dementia will inspire one of the best stories in the twenty-first. 
As parents, may we each choose what is real, no matter the cost, that we may come to know real love and pour it out for our children.
Christians need to realize that there is no scapegoat on this earth that can be sacrificed to bring us a peaceful end to the evils we encounter.
America has long led the world in economic success, entrepreneurship, technology, and innovation. We can and we should lead in human flourishing. To do so, we must invest in the fundamental ingredients of flourishing: marriage and children.
If my younger self had understood even this much—that discernment begins with recognizing one’s gifts and offering them, detached from any personal agenda, for God’s purposes—I might have spent a little less time anxiously waiting for the clouds to part. I might have spent more time offering the little I had, trusting that God could use it for his purposes.
Individuals who want to marry must choose from options that lack the spontaneity and spark many hope for: singles groups, dating apps, speed dating. One is left wondering whether a bad script is preferable to no script at all. And well-intentioned people—mostly married—offer all kinds of conflicting advice about how to date to find a spouse. I aim to tackle these seeming contradictions in order to show how each can be true and helpful for the Tough Mudder that is twenty-first-century dating.

Get your free eBook for The Human Person

"*" indicates required fields

Get your free eBook for Sexuality & Family

Get your free eBook for Politics & Law

Get your free eBook for Education & Culture

Get your free eBook for Business & Economics