Ventajas de la inclusión de cláusulas laborales en los TLC

Willis Jenkins’ first book Ecologies of Grace: Environmental Ethics and

Christian Theology, was an exploration of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox theologies

of environmental ethics. He described the project as an “exercise in ecumenical

understanding, rather than a comprehensive evaluation, or a reconstructive proposal.”280 From his perspective, each branch of Christianity works within its own tradition to address its adherents on environmental problems. Each denomination offers what Jenkins calls a “grace.”281 These graces are specifically tailored theologies that reach congregants through a common vernacular. Utilizing denominational graces is ultimately more

effective—in Jenkins’ purview—than attempting a lowest common denominator (i.e., ecumenical) approach to ethics. Since parishioners of each tradition have developed a common lexicon and worldview, it is most effective to speak to them directly as, say, a Catholic from a Catholic perspective. In this way, the faithful—whether Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox—are more likely to enact conservation with conviction based on their own teachings.

At the same time, each of the three branches of Christianity concur that there is a need for environmental conservation, paving a common ground between the traditions. This does not gloss over differences, but rather highlights similarities. Jenkins reveals that “illuminating the pluralism… and indicating its practical significance” for Christian environmental theologies were among the goals of his project.282 He achieves this by

280 _{Willis Jenkins, Ecologies of Grace: Environmental Ethics and Christian Theology (Oxford: Oxford}

University Press, 2008), 227.

281 _{Here, Jenkins follows Laurel Kearns who “observes that there are three basic theological approaches to}

ecology: ecojustice, Christian stewardship, and creation spirituality.” These generally align with Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodox Christianity, respectively. Ibid., 18.

pointing to the consensus of Christian branches around ecological ethics. In a line parallel to Ecologies of Grace, this section draws out the similarities between H. Richard

Niebuhr, Richard Bauckham, and Catholic Social Teaching, while also recognizing their differences.

It is the objective of the first part of this section to underscore the points of

convergence among my chosen theological sources. I argue that H. Richard Niebuhr and Richard Bauckham are concurrent streams that converge around an idea that reflects the common good. CST speaks of the common good directly. Recognizing points of

convergence paves the path for moving forward with constructive proposals for ecological ethics, ecological theology, or ecological policy.

In the second part of this section, I utilize Jenkins’ call for religious creativity to construct “practical strategies” for environmental conservation.283 His notion of practical strategies for conservation builds the bridge from my ethical foundation in the common good—explicated in this chapter—to the four principles of green bioethics—articulated in chapters three through six. I maintain that these four principles provide a

conservationist trajectory for medical developments, techniques, and procedures in an environmentally precarious world. I begin by indicating points of convergence among the work produced by H. Richard Niebuhr, Richard Bauckham, and Catholic Social

Teaching.

A. Points of convergence among theologies

Establishing points of convergence among theologies strengthens similarities across traditions and indicates points of contact. Willis Jenkins maintains that his

“particular pluralist approach intentionally opens space of constructive argument in many

other religious scenes,”284 _{and, I would add, other intellectual disciplines. Focusing on}

points of convergence does tend to downplay differences in theological worldviews and convictions about the scriptures or anthropology (especially as it relates to sin and grace). However, points of convergence also allow participants to move forward with unified policies and practices, without necessarily adhering to underlying belief systems. This overall benefit of consensus outweighs the cost of generalities, especially when we talk not only across denominational lines, but also across religious lines.

Willis Jenkins points to ecological writer Bryan G. Norton, whose “convergence hypothesis’ supposes that adherents of diverse environmental worldviews will, by participating in the process of managing specific issues, converge on similar policies.”285 When urgent issues like environmental conservation demand immediate attention, they can expedite political and social processes as well. Thus, I focus on the primary point of convergence between H. Richard Niebuhr, Richard Bauckham, and Catholic Social Teaching—a notion of the common good. As Willis Jenkins says, “the common good accommodates multiple moral projects seeking the goods of humanity and of creation.”286 I first analyze Protestant H. Richard Niebuhr’s view of homo dialogicus as it converges around the idea of the common good.

1. Protestant H. Richard Niebuhr

Niebuhr’s work on responsibility was born of the tumult and immense social changes during the middle of 20th century America. At that time, there was a growing social awareness of the lives of others. Civil rights, social justice, and the aftermath of World War II were among the issues mid-century Americans grappled with. The

284 _{Jenkins, The Future of Ethics, 6.} 285 _{Ibid., 159.}

appropriateness of ethical action is writ large in Niebuhr’s vision of homo dialogicus, which asks, “what is the fitting thing to do?” Thus, emphasis on both the agent and society factor into his notion of responsibility. Indeed, Niebuhr’s work displays “a concern with the nature of moral agency and a common recognition of the social nature of the self.”287 The following features are salient for Niebuhr’s work within a moral framework indicative of the common good.

First, Niebuhr includes the community in his articulation of responsibility.

Responsibility is larger than the individual since the moral agent must be accountable to constituents of the common good. Second, since all people are part of society, their interests factor into Niebuhr’s homo dialogicus paradigm. A moral agent cannot act without reference to her community. Third, Niebuhr’s proposal for responsibility is dynamic, and ever shifting, as the human asks, “what is going on?” This question faces each generation, geographical location, and—interestingly—branch of moral concern within the common good (e.g., health care, common resources, and social movements.)

Niebuhr’s articulation of responsibility can be considered in line with the common good. Niebuhr argues “our action is responsible when it is a response to action upon us in a continuing discourse or interaction among beings forming a continuing society.”288 Humans are situated in a community. The self and society are intertwined and

interdependent; this is the crux of the common good. I argue that Niebuhr’s theology of

homo dialogicus emphasizes the person within the community and reflects larger

concerns related to the common good. Likewise, the work of Evangelical Richard Bauckham indicates a notion—not identical with, but similar to—the common good.

287 _{Gardner, “Character, Virtue, and Responsibility,” 315.} 288 _{Niebuhr, The Responsible Self, 65.}

2. Evangelical Richard Bauckham

Richard Bauckham’s objective is to provide a biblical rationale to halt further ecological destruction.289 Bauckham does this by lifting up scriptures that describe human limitation, thus abandoning the notion of unchecked “dominion” over the earth. Our “special place” in the world is decidedly not an anthropocentrism that translates to a license to do as we wish.290 _{Instead, it is among God’s creation, working within the}

bounds of our created place. The concepts “interdependence,” “limitation,” “boundaries,” “creatureliness,” and “creature” are expedient for discussions on the common good since they articulate an individual identity and reiterate the social location of our actions.

Human limitation displays awareness of our commitments to others. Humans must actively work to put limits on our activities, thus stewarding natural resources on behalf of the shared earthly community. Bauckham successfully provides a language for human actions within biblical bounds. Terms and phrases like “noninterference” and “keep(ing) our hands off” of nature291 indicate that the earth itself is part of the common good. Acknowledging the role of the planet in sustaining life is a helpful corrective to the current “divide and conquer” mentality prevalent in many parts of the developed world. Further, Bauckham’s common refrain of “letting creation be”292 is flexible enough to translate into multiple forms of moral action.

The principal point of convergence between Richard Bauckham’s ecological theology and the idea of the common good manifests in his view of human limitation. In Bauckham’s view of human limitation, individuals take only what God has provided to

289 _{Bauckham, Living with Other Creatures,1.}

290 _{For a conservative Catholic view of the place of humans in ecology, see Joseph Tham, “Challenges to}

Human Dignity in the Ecology Movement,” The Linacre Quarterly 77, no. 1 (2010): 53-62.

291 _{Bauckham, Living with Other Creatures, 62.} 292 _{Ibid., 6-7; 132.}

them, thus appropriately using shared goods. Limitation is a familiar word in the Evangelical canon; the common good is not. However, Bauckham’s utilization of the scriptures as his authority for human limitation translates well into a concept related to the common good, without using the unfamiliar term. Last, I look at CST as the final point of convergence around the common good.

3. Catholic Social Teachings

Historically, Catholic Social Teaching on the common good has upheld the claims of the individual to authentic flourishing, and the realities of a sharing goods of a society.

Gauduim et spes identifies the common good as “the sum of those conditions of social

life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment... and consequently involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race.”293 These twin social and individual aspects mutually reinforce each other. The social aspect of the common good checks individualism that only seeks ego-satisfaction. At the same time, the dignity of the individual person is maintained by means of access to social goods. The common good is apparent throughout CST, and especially in the three documents I surveyed in section IV.

First, the USCCB’s Climate Change underscores the need for conservation as an essential feature of the common good. The Bishops do this by placing the burden of lifestyle change on developed world individuals and countries, which are responsible for the vast majority of resource excavation and exploitation. The Bishops require that individuals take initiative to reduce waste in order to preserve our shared environment. Preservation of the earth on behalf of the common good is necessary in this age of ecological catastrophe, thus people must amend their overly-consumptive practices.

Second, Benedict XVI continues the Catholic Social Teaching on the common good vis-à-vis his emphasis on the creation narrative, which links human relationships with their terrestrial dwelling. The goods of nature were established for humans since the beginning of time. The central teaching the World Day of Peace Message can be summed up by one sentence in paragraph six: “Man (sic) has a duty to exercise responsible

stewardship over creation, to care for it and to cultivate it.”294 _{Conservation of the earth}

for the benefit of all people is expected, appropriate to the biblical tradition of working the land.

Third, Laudato Si’ balances the claims of the individual and the limits of our common home. Pope Francis maintains, “Authentic human development has a moral character. It presumes full respect for the human person.”295 _{Although the priority for}

human needs in prominent in Laudato Si’, nature cannot be instrumentalized. Thus, we see an expanded understanding of the common good. “It is not enough to think of different species merely as potential ‘resources’ to be exploited, while overlooking the fact that they have value in themselves,”296 declares Francis. It seems, therefore, that creation is a part of the common good, where humans and animals, climate and water, algae and insects have a claim to species existence in harmony with the larger society. “Each creature has its own purpose. None is superfluous.”297 Each living being is a members of the common good; all participate in a symbiotic ecosystem, while at the same time having a life of their own.

294 _{Benedict XVI, World Day of Peace Message, 6. The Pope is quoting his own Caritas in Veritate, 50.} 295 _{Francis, Laudato Si’, 5.}

296 _{Ibid., 33.} 297 _{Ibid., 84.}

Summary

Within the theological ethics presented above, Protestants tend to emphasize the role of the individual first, whether as a responsible agent—as was the case with H. Richard Niebuhr—or by limiting oneself—as was the case with Richard Bauckham. Yet, both Niebuhr and Bauckham consider the community a salient feature of ethics. Niebuhr contends that accountability to society is essential for responsibility and Bauckham speaks of the “community of creation.” Neither uses the term “the common good,” yet both Niebuhr and Bauckham express a view of ethics wide enough to include the individual-in-society.

Catholics go to the heart of the common good, using overt language, which

envisions the moral agent as deeply interconnected to society. This indicates a robust, but primarily anthropocentric, vision of the common good. At the same time, there is

evidence that the idea of the common good in CST is expanding to include non-humans. Pope Francis believes, “The development of the Church’s social teaching represents a synthesis with regard to social issues; this teaching is called to be enriched by taking up new challenges,”298 _{making CST accountable for dehabitation of animals and loss of}

biodiversity.

From the preceding sections, it may be concluded that H. Richard Niebuhr, Richard Bauckham, and Catholic Social Teaching all provide an ethic that points towards the common good. These three sources consider that the communal well being and individual flourishing are indispensible elements of the common good. The identification of these points of convergence has prepared the last step of my foundational

methodology: practical strategies for conservation. It is essential to have a theological

foundation for the enormous undertaking of “greening” the medical industry. Jenkins notes, “Since religious values can enrich public discussion, this challenge offers opportunities for interfaith and ecumenical conversation and cooperation.”299 It is his articulation of practical strategies for conservation to which I now turn.

B. Practical strategies for conservation

Willis Jenkins is convinced that there are multiple, non-exclusive tactics to achieve sustainability. His pragmatism is displayed in the belief that we need a diversity of approaches to attend to the manifold concerns of the environment. This allows for the greatest number of Christians to identify with the ecological movement; theories of ecology need not be pitted against each other for dominance. In a parallel sentiment, Pope Francis remarked, “there is no one path to a solution. This makes a variety of proposals possible, all capable of entering into dialogue with a view to developing comprehensive solutions.”300 Theological ethicists can identify these various approaches to conservation, provide an intelligible model for the interpretation of the environmental crisis, and propose active solutions.

These active solutions may take many different forms and are an invitation to people from all disciplines to participate. Jenkins objective for his monograph “was to show how ethics interprets the relevant disciples (economics, social theory,

environmental sciences) within a general theological account of sustainability.”301 Multi- discipline discourse precludes theology from becoming isolated and myopic. At the same time, theologians need not feel bound to academic siloing. Critical thinking, novel

approaches, inter-disciplinary solutions, and original initiatives are all welcomed. Jenkins

299 _{United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Plea.”} 300 _{Francis, Laudato Si’, 60.}

believes “each strategy (for practical responses to climate change)… orients the reader to look for their trajectory of moral creativity.”302 The braiding of multiple conversations and, indeed a certain amount of ingenuity, generates many practical strategies for conservation. My project is among the voices contributing to the work on theological ecology, many of which are utilized for support.

The topic of this dissertation is sustainability in the medical industry and I

propose four principles to promote conservation in health care settings. I am calling these four principles of “green bioethics” to indicate their points of contact (i.e., bioethics), and divergence (i.e., green), with environmental bioethics. In this penultimate section, I introduce green bioethics as a practical strategy for conservation. I explain my methodology, scope and focus, and raise some initial considerations. This allows the remaining four chapters to unfold systematically, with each one addressing a specific principle.

1. Green bioethics as a strategy for conservation

The global community is aware of climate change, loss of biodiversity, famine, drought, pollution, resource scarcity, and food insecurity. Jürgen Moltmann declares, “The next step that must be taken is the transition from a world domestic policy to a common earth policy.”303 There are two basic methodological approaches to

policymaking. One approach leaps over principles and goes directly to laws or initiatives. Indeed, many theologians, scientists, and ecologists have tried their hands at

302 _{Ibid., 18-19.}

303 _{Jürgen Moltmann, “A Common Earth Religion: World Religions from an Ecological Perspective,” 63,}

comprehensive environmental policy without articulated principles.304

Another approach outlines principles, with the expectation that others create governmental policies from them. For instance, Jessica Pierce and Andrew Jameton believe that fundamental environmental principles, collectively named “principles of sustainability,” should guide legislative policymaking. Their proposed guiding principles are: “sustainability, a fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, modesty of consumption, responsibility to nature and future generations.”305 In between the call for policy alone, and the suggestion for principles without policy, is green bioethics. The four principles of bioethics utilize a clear methodology, have a specific scope and focus, and avoid dogmatism. Each of these will be outlined. First, I explain my methodology. a. Methodology

Green bioethics approaches the health care industry from an environmental framework rooted in the common good. Christian ethicists must ask, “How are we to fulfill God’s call to be stewards of creation in an age when we may have the capacity to alter creation significantly, and perhaps irrevocably?”306 I have argued that multiple theologies—including those from H. Richard Niebuhr, Richard Bauckham, and Catholic Social Teaching—utilize an idea related to the common good to answer questions such as these. The common good as a theological concept offers a broad base for ethics and lends itself to a problem-focused, pragmatic discussion about medical technologies and

environmental conservation.

304 _{See Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi, Guillaume Bazouin, Zack A. F. Bauer, Christa C. Heavey,}

Emma Fisher, Sean B. Morris, Diniana J. Y. Piekutowski, Taylor A. Vencill, ands Tim W. Yeskoo, “100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) All- Sector Energy Roadmaps for the 50 United States,” Energy & Environmental Science 8 (2015): 2093-2117.

305 _{Jessica Pierce and Andrew Jameton, The Ethics of Environmentally Responsible Health Care (Oxford:}

Oxford University Press, 2004), 116.