I call to your attention the website for The Nathaniel Centre. The Nathaniel Centre describes itself as the New Zealand Catholic bioethics centre. I am not a Catholic (in fact I am an atheist), but this website maintained my attention for longer than I expected.
The 'Bioethical Principles' section of the website naturally arrested my eye. This portion of the website summarizes the four TJ/BC fundamental bioethical principles I have previously discussed. No novel insights regarding the 4 principles are provided.
The website then lists several supplemental principles to the TJ/BC fundamental bioethical principles. "From a Catholic perspective" is the wording the website uses. These additional principles include the following: sacredness of life, the innate dignity of human life, truth-telling, common good, and preferential option for the poor. The TJ/BC justice principle is also reanalyzed via the Catholic framework.
The plumbline libertarian has no objection to three of these supplemental principles [sacredness of life, the innate dignity of human life, and truth-telling] because they do not conflict with the libertarian rational natural rights ethic (self-ownership, original appropriation, and non-aggression). Also, the plumbline libertarian does not object to the other three supplemental principles (common good, Catholic justice, and preferential option for the poor) because, in the abstract, they also do not conflict with the libertarian rational natural rights ethic. The details of the Nathaniel Centre discussion of these other three supplemental principles are worrisome, however.
For example, regarding the common good supplemental principle, the website asserts that the "commitment to the common good calls for the cooperative organization of structures that enable access to what is needed to live a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education, culture, information, the right to have a family, and so on." If this "cooperative organization of structures" is a voluntary effort that does not involve aggression, then the plumbline libertarian agrees. If, as I suspect, however, this wording refers to the State (the principal criminal organization of aggression in society), then the plumbline libertarian disagrees.
The Nathaniel Centre view of Catholic justice frankly must be opposed by the plumbline libertarian. The website states that "a Catholic approach to Bioethics is opposed to the idea that distributions of health care services can be left up to the marketplace or according to the ability of people to pay" and notes that the "commitment of the New Zealand government to the Treaty principles of participation, partnership, and protection of Maori people in the shaping and provision of health services for Maori, is a good example of the application of the principle of justice in healthcare delivery in New Zealand." Thus, the Nathaniel Centre supports aggression in the allocation of scarce healthcare resources, which is a crime from the libertarian rational natural rights ethic viewpoint.
Finally, the Nathaniel Centre analysis of the preferential option for the poor principle promotes "the idea that the goods of this world are there for all to share." This is difficult to reconcile with plumbline libertarianism, because it is nearly impossible to construct a scenario in which an attempt is made for all to share scarce healthcare resources without the use of State aggression. In addition, all such historical attempts have failed miserably.
I recommend the Nathaniel Centre website. I learned about the Catholic view of bioethics. Catholics need to learn about libertarian bioethics.
The 'Bioethical Principles' section of the website naturally arrested my eye. This portion of the website summarizes the four TJ/BC fundamental bioethical principles I have previously discussed. No novel insights regarding the 4 principles are provided.
The website then lists several supplemental principles to the TJ/BC fundamental bioethical principles. "From a Catholic perspective" is the wording the website uses. These additional principles include the following: sacredness of life, the innate dignity of human life, truth-telling, common good, and preferential option for the poor. The TJ/BC justice principle is also reanalyzed via the Catholic framework.
The plumbline libertarian has no objection to three of these supplemental principles [sacredness of life, the innate dignity of human life, and truth-telling] because they do not conflict with the libertarian rational natural rights ethic (self-ownership, original appropriation, and non-aggression). Also, the plumbline libertarian does not object to the other three supplemental principles (common good, Catholic justice, and preferential option for the poor) because, in the abstract, they also do not conflict with the libertarian rational natural rights ethic. The details of the Nathaniel Centre discussion of these other three supplemental principles are worrisome, however.
For example, regarding the common good supplemental principle, the website asserts that the "commitment to the common good calls for the cooperative organization of structures that enable access to what is needed to live a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education, culture, information, the right to have a family, and so on." If this "cooperative organization of structures" is a voluntary effort that does not involve aggression, then the plumbline libertarian agrees. If, as I suspect, however, this wording refers to the State (the principal criminal organization of aggression in society), then the plumbline libertarian disagrees.
The Nathaniel Centre view of Catholic justice frankly must be opposed by the plumbline libertarian. The website states that "a Catholic approach to Bioethics is opposed to the idea that distributions of health care services can be left up to the marketplace or according to the ability of people to pay" and notes that the "commitment of the New Zealand government to the Treaty principles of participation, partnership, and protection of Maori people in the shaping and provision of health services for Maori, is a good example of the application of the principle of justice in healthcare delivery in New Zealand." Thus, the Nathaniel Centre supports aggression in the allocation of scarce healthcare resources, which is a crime from the libertarian rational natural rights ethic viewpoint.
Finally, the Nathaniel Centre analysis of the preferential option for the poor principle promotes "the idea that the goods of this world are there for all to share." This is difficult to reconcile with plumbline libertarianism, because it is nearly impossible to construct a scenario in which an attempt is made for all to share scarce healthcare resources without the use of State aggression. In addition, all such historical attempts have failed miserably.
I recommend the Nathaniel Centre website. I learned about the Catholic view of bioethics. Catholics need to learn about libertarian bioethics.
RSS Feed
