Jason Eberl

Contemporary arguments concerning the permissibility of physician-assisted suicide [PAS], or suicide in general, often rehearse classical arguments over whether individual persons have a fundamental right based on autonomy to determine their own death, or whether the community has a legitimate interest in individual members’ welfare that would prohibit suicide. I explicate historical arguments pertaining to PAS aligned with these poles. I contend that an ethical indictment of PAS entails moral duties on the part of one’s community to provide effective means of ameliorating physical and existential suffering. I further elucidate how such duties have been affirmed by the Roman Catholic Church. My aim is to provide reasons why the expanding legalization of PAS should not preclude social investment in effective palliative care and providing a communal presence to the dying as they confront their subjectively experienced suffering.

Many debates in arenas such as bioethics turn on questions regarding the moral status of human beings at various stages of biological development or decline. It is often argued that a human being possesses a fundamental and inviolable moral status insofar as she is a “person”; yet, it is contested whether all or only human beings count as persons. Perhaps there are non-human person, and perhaps not every human being satisfies the definitional criteria for being a person. A further question, which will be the primary focus of this paper, concerns what essential features of personhood endow persons, human or otherwise, with their moral status and the inherent rights they concomitantly possess. A survey of the history of philosophical theorizing on what it means to be a person yields a broad consensus upon the key capacities being rational thought, self-consciousness, and autonomous volition. It is not sufficient, however, simply to cite these capacities, but to explain why these particular capacities bear moral import. A more recent concern has developed regarding the possible future existence of so-called “post-persons” who, due to their enhanced cognitive and emotive capacities, may be morally superior to mere persons and thereby possess a higher moral status. This paper will conclude with an analysis of the extent to which this concern is warranted.

One issue in contemporary philosophy that has received significant attention recently concerns the metaphysical nature of human persons. The debate between philosophers who reduce human nature to physical or psychological properties alone, and those who hold that human nature transcends such properties, has engendered a great deal of scholarship and inspired others to formulate accounts that avoid the pitfalls of either extreme. I canvass this debate and focus upon three positions to explicate and evaluate. Richard Swinburne contends that a human person is identical to an immaterial soul. Eric Olson argues for a reduction of human nature to its biological "animality." Lynne Rudder Baker provides an account that preserves the inherently physical nature of human persons, while arguing that being a person includes more than what physical properties alone can explain. ;In addition to these contemporary scholars, I find Thomas Aquinas to provide a good source of interlocution and to add a comparable historical voice to this debate. I thus provide a reconstruction of Aquinas's account for comparison to those discussed previously. I claim that Aquinas offers an account which takes seriously the physical aspect of human nature, though Aquinas does not identify a human person with her physical body. Conversely, Aquinas does not argue that a human person is identical to an immaterial soul, though Aquinas considers an immaterial soul to be an essential part of human nature. ;Conclusions concerning the metaphysical nature of human persons have important practical implications in areas such as bioethics. For example, in the debate over euthanasia, one issue concerns whether a patient in a "persistent vegetative state," i.e., who is permanently unconscious, qualifies as a "person." I show how a metaphysical account of human nature, such as Aquinas', provides an arguable response to this issue among others in bioethics

This paper addresses several questions related to the nature, production, and use of animal-human (a-h) chimeras. At the heart of the issue is whether certain types of a-h chimeras should be brought into existence, and, if they are, how we should treat such creatures. In our current research environment, we recognize a dichotomy between research involving nonhuman animal subjects and research involving human subjects, and the classification of a research protocol into one of these categories will trigger different ethical standards as to the moral permissibility of the research in question. Are a-h chimeras entitled to the more restrictive and protective ethical standards applied to human research subjects? We elucidate an Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysical framework in which to argue how such chimeras ought to be defined ontologically. We then examine when the creation of, and experimentation upon, certain types of a-h chimeras may be morally permissible.

In debates over issues such as abortion, a primary principle on which the Roman Catholic outlook is based is the natural law mandate to respect human life rooted in the Aristotelian philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. This principle, however, is limited by focusing on the obligation not to kill innocent humans and thereby neglects another important facet of the Aristotelian-Thomistic ethical viewpoint—namely, obligations that bind human beings in relationships of mutual dependence and responsibility. I argue that there is a need to cultivate a “virtue of acknowledged responsibility” and conclude by addressing a prevalent issue in contemporary society: absent paternal responsibility. My aim is to show that there is an interesting and often neglected rationale in Catholic moral understanding for “deadbeat dad” laws that compel men to take responsibility for any children or fetuses they father and to assist women who give birth to those children or carry those fetuses.

Alongside a revival of interest in Thomism in philosophy, scholars have realised its relevance when addressing certain contemporary issues in bioethics. This book offers a rigorous interpretation of Aquinas's metaphysics and ethical thought, and highlights its significance to questions in bioethics. Jason T. Eberl applies Aquinas’s views on the seminal topics of human nature and morality to key questions in bioethics at the margins of human life – questions which are currently contested in the academia, politics and the media such as: When does a human person’s life begin? How should we define and clinically determine a person’s death? Is abortion ever morally permissible? How should we resolve the conflict between the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research and the lives of human embryos? Does cloning involve a misuse of human ingenuity and technology? What forms of treatment are appropriate for irreversibly comatose patients? How should we care for patients who experience unbearable suffering as they approach the end of life? _Thomistic Principles and Bioethics_ presents a significant philosophical viewpoint which will motivate further dialogue amongst religious and secular arenas of inquiry concerning such complex issues of both individual and public concern.

The essays in this volume tackle the philosophical questions from these blockbuster films including: Was Anakin predestined to fall to the Dark Side? Are the Jedi truly role models of moral virtue? Why would the citizens and protectors of a democratic Republic allow it to descend into a tyrannical empire? Is Yoda a peaceful Zen master or a great warrior, or both? Why is there both a light and a dark side of the Force? Star Wars and Philosophy ponders the depths of these subjects and asks what it truly means to be mindful of the "living force."

Dignitas personae has garnered significant attention both inside and outside Roman Catholic circles, but it lacks the argumentative force not only to present the Church’s ethical judgment but also to persuade non-sympathetic readers. More direct engagement with contrary views would provide a stronger foundation for constructing arguments in public discourse. This article highlights various assertions found in Dignitas personae which call for greater explicit argumentation. Subjects treated include the ontological and moral status of human embryos, prenatal adoption, potentially abortifacient contraceptives, reproductive cloning, and alternatives to human embryonic stem cell research, such as induced pluripotent stem cells and animal–human chimeras.

Euthanasia, today, is one of the most debated issues in bioethics. Euthanasia, at the time of Thomas Aquinas, was an unheard-of term. Nevertheless, while there is no direct statement with respect to “euthanasia” per se in the writings of Aquinas, Aquinas’s moral theory and certain theological commitments he held could be applied to the euthanasia question and thus bring Aquinas into contemporary bioethical debate. In this paper, I present the relevant aspects of Aquinas’s account of natural law and his theological views on suffering, examining what conclusions each entails with respect to directly intended euthanasia. I then proceed to discuss cases that involve either the administration of palliative medication that hastens death, terminal sedation, or the non-utilization of life-sustaining treatment. This involves a detailed investigation into Aquinas’s account of human intentional action and the question of whether Aquinas holds some form of the Principle of Double-Effect. I end with a final statement of Aquinas’s position on these various types of cases as a synthesis of the conclusions drawn from the different areas of his thought discussed in this paper. My aim is to provide a set of guidelines, based upon Aquinas’s thought, for those who may be faced with decisions regarding the proper form of palliative treatment to be provided to those suffering from a painful terminal illness. Decision-makers, in such cases, may include a terminally ill patient, a patient’s immediate family, health care providers, and lawmakers concerned with establishing the legality of certain forms of treatment. Establishing a clear set of moral guidelines, specifically addressed to this type of decision, can assist the relevant decision-makers in forming their consciences such that they may take the appropriate course of action in confronting the suffering of a terminally ill patient.

The Routledge Guidebook to Aquinas‘ Summa Theologiae introduces readers to a work which represents the pinnacle of medieval Western scholarship and which has inspired numerous commentaries, imitators, and opposing views. Outlining the main arguments Aquinas utilizes to support his conclusions on various philosophical questions, this clear and comprehensive guide explores: The historical context in which Aquinas wrote A critical discussion of the topics outlined in the text including theology, metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, ethics, and political theory. The ongoing influence of Summa Theologiae in modern Philosophy and Theology Offering a close reading of the original work, this guidebook highlights the central themes of Aquinas’ masterwork and is an essential read for anyone seeking an understanding of this highly influential work in the history of philosophy

This paper considers the issue of cryopreservation and the definition of death from an Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective. A central conceptual focus throughout this discussion is the purportedly irreversible nature of death and the criteria by which a human body is considered to be informed by a rational soul. It concludes that a cryopreserved corpse fails to have “life potentially in it” sufficient to satisfy Aristotle’s definition of ensoulment. Therefore, if the possibility that such a corpse may be successfully preserved and resuscitated comes to fruition, one would have to conclude that the person’s rational soul, which had separated from its body at death, has literally reanimated its resuscitated body. Obviously, this conclusion has theological implications that go beyond the scope of this discussion if we regard bodily resuscitation in this manner as a form of technologically induced resurrection. Another apparent implication of the paper’s argument is that, in a limited sense, death loses its irreversible nature.