The Task of Theological Humanism
108
religious thinkers – argue that only by holding on to the intrinsic worth of life can we place limits on technological power in the name of future life on this planet. By insisting on the inviolability of life, its sanctity, this ethics shifts the weight of moral analysis to what “respects” life and so evaluates any
technological means What is intrinsically good is life; the relief of suffering for living beings is not self-justifying. that claim to relieve suffering and promote interests.
In the face of technology and the spread of human power, certain neohu-manists argue that we must see humans as the “Shepherds of Being,” or, The Human Calling
theologically stated, assume stewardship for the earth. The central moral issue is not just power or technology, but, rather, attitudes for life, as these neohu-manists have seen. On this point the ethics for the enhancement of life and the ethics of the reverence for life are off the mark. The ethics for the
enhancement of life recognizes only that can suffer. This seems to make the supreme value the avoidance of suf-fering or the relief of pain. The ethics of the reverence for life risks making life into a second God, so sacred that we ought never to take life under any interests and preferences of those beings
circumstance. The mistake in both forms of ethics is to believe that life life is that which is to be given respect and to be enhanced.the For a theological humanist, the human calling is to bear responsibility for integrity of life. What we are to respect and enhance is not life qua life, but, qua
rather, the integration of goods: goods rooted in bodily need and well-being; goods rooted in social interaction; goods rooted in reflective structures of meaning and value; goods of locality. In terms of duties (respect and enhance), the object of moral consideration and the scope of value (integrity of life),
theological humanism places strong limits on the power to intervene and change life. It combats the full- scale acceptance of the technological imper-ative. And yet it also opens an appropriate arena and specifies the conditions in which there can be the responsible use of technological power. The burden
and joy of responsibility remains the human calling. Difficult and often tragic choices must be made about specific decisions and policies in the treatment of human and non-human life. As noted in chapter 5, responsibility orders the demands of respect and enhancement and so signals third-way thinking
about actions and relation, including basic and natural goods.the responsibility human beings have for the garden. Rather than enter It would be possible to explore specific cases and challenges surrounding