Dignity of the human person and objective moral norms as rules in economy

Abstract

The author subjects to revision the economic liberalism supporters’ views, according to which there is no room for universal moral norms in the area of economy. The conception of homo economicus accepted in economy and the exclusive rule of profit are a manifestation of reductionism. The conviction that the free competition – free market – acts mechanically and impersonally and solves all economic-social problems in the best way is basically incorrect. In free competition there are positive and negative elements. Free competition – “yes, but what kind?”

In the article a possibly complete picture of man is shown. Man is a reasonable creature, he is internally free and able to recognize good and evil (owing to his conscience) and owing to this he is the most perfect being in the created world. In his nature, man is a social being (ens sociale); a spiritual-bodily unity; he is not completely actualized but he is open to development; he is a religious and working creature (laborem exercens, homo economicus); he is able to do good, devote oneself to others, to build just – albeit not ideal –systems: legal, cultural, social and economic. But man is also able to do evil: to kill others, to steal, to lie, to wage wars, to commit acts of terrorism and of genocide, to build concentration camps, to manipulate the needs and mentality of whole societies and to enslave others by means of mass media – that is to form a one-dimension man. In the theological-biblical language this is called sinfulness of the human nature. And finally, man is capable of – as H. Marcuse writes – “scientific idiotism”.

The highest value is the inborn, n a t u r a l, dignity of the human person, which is pointed to by his mind, inner freedom and conscience. Man is created in God’s image (imago Dei). Christ’s incarnation and redemption of man show his s u p e r n a t u r a l dignity. This is theological-biblical justification. Also philosophical (rational) justification is given. The former one is binding for believers, and the latter is for unbelievers. In the Catholic social teaching both justifications are given. The ontic structure of the human person in itself gives rise to obligations, it is the highest norm. It is defined in the following form: the human person should be respected for himself, because he is a person, and not for any other reason (persona est affirmanda propter se ipsam). The very human person, his dignity, is the fundamental norm of morality that is searched for. The Decalogue, objective and universal moral norms as principles show how to respect and protect the human person. It is not recognizing and complying with moral norms and human rights for themselves that is meant here – art for the art’s sake (pure formalism) – but protection of one’s own dignity and the dignity of every other person. Both moral norms as principles and human rights have been discovered slowly, step by step, but regressions also occur; this especially happened in the 20^th and at the beginning of the 21^st century. Human persons are the subjects of all communities – the family, the nation, the universal human society (familiae humanae), production and service institutions. The communities do not exist by themselves, but human persons are their foundation. Human persons, and not various systems, are the subject of any activity, for the systems are not persons or super-persons – Super Ego. Hence the thesis put forward by some economists that the system is ruled by an invisible hand is absurd.

In human rights three elements are distinguished: their source, contents and protection. These constitute an integral whole. However, identifying a part with the whole (pars pro toto) is a logical mistake. The debate about man’s right to work can be solved after removing this logical mistake and introducing a new term: “the right for work”; showing that work is one of man’s fundamental needs, that it is a universal phenomenon, has a multi-aspectual dimension of values. Work is an anthropological (personal), moral, social, cultural, historical and economic value. Together with the multidimensional value of work the multidimensional evil of unemployment can be seen. There have been various economic models, even in capitalism. After the fall of socialism the thesis is proclaimed that capitalism is the only alternative (logical quantifier). Recognizing the priority of the real capital over work treated as a tool and commodity bought in the so-called work market is the essential feature of capitalism. John Paul II perceives numerous positive elements in capitalism, but he also sees a few negative ones: “We have found out that the thesis saying that after the defeat of real socialism capitalism remains the only model (logical quantifier) of economic organization is unacceptable.” He does not suggest another model, but generally he states that it is “… a society in which there are: freedom of work, enterprise and participation” that is meant here. He adds: “Economy that does not take into consideration the ethical dimension and does not attempt to serve the good of man – each man and the whole man – in fact does not even deserve the name of «economy» understood as reasonable and benevolent management of material resources”. Although he sees positive elements in the process of globalization, he puts forward an imperative demand to base it on the principle of the dignity of the human person and his rights, and the good of the whole human family (familiae humanae). In the area of economy “ … in the field of economy nobody may insult the human dignity without a punishment, which dignity God himself respects greatly” (Leo XIII).