Geni Maria Hoss[1]
Abstract
The breakthrough of the bioethical conception of Fritz
Jahr is an invitation to reconsider the theme under a few aspects that enhance
and promote an in-depth reflection on the ethical relationship towards all
forms of life on the planet. Here it deals specifically with the contribution
of the author to Christian communities in view of the significant presence in
society today. Fritz Jahr considers in his thoughts on the foundation of
religions regarding care for all forms of life. He highlights relevant aspects
of his own faith, the Christian faith, and, like the oriental religions, the
core of his message is love and compassion. The applicability of the Bioethical
Imperative of Fritz Jahr – “Respect every living being on principle as an end
in itself and treat it, if possible, as such!” – is extensive. Here we stress
aspects that currently require special attention given the social and
environmental challenges that demand from Christian communities a new way of
relating to other living beings and the planet as a whole. The transversal approach on
education and the author’s concern for formal/informal ethical building is
revealed as a unique form of establishing a new way of being on the planet that
allows a future for the Earth.
Key-words: Bioethical
Imperative, Christian faith, Compassion and Love,
Education.
The bioethical imperative
requires an intensive education process.
The transmission of faith
without an education process leads to the distancing of values originating from
the faith and those effectively practiced. Education is a transversal theme in
the bioethical essays of Jahr. This is the vision of a full education and the
risks of education subject to possible ideological diktats. There is an
important relationship between education and ecology.
Care for life in the planet
today requires each of the planetary citizens to understand better the
inter-relationships of living beings and their importance with the whole. And I
need a true revolution
of thinking, which
cannot be achieved with prescriptions, campaigns or other specific projects no
matter how necessary and important they may be. For such, a consistent and
continuous education process is required. The role of education is to
strengthen the significant integration of people in their surroundings. “Education humanizes and personalizes human beings
when they can fully develop their thinking and freedom, transforming them into
habits of understanding and into comprehensive initiatives with the actual
order”[2].
As a Christian, for Jahr
freedom constitutes an integral part of the faith itself. “Christ set us free,
so that we should remain free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be
fastened again to the yoke of slavery” (Gal 5,1). Freedom of thought is not
only an emerging interpellation in the pedagogical sphere and of the social and
political conditions. The anxiety for freedom is inscribed in the human being
and is also one of the signs of the times
identified in a time of transition of paradigms in the area of education.
His pedagogical reflections are supported on this base and are of major
importance for its pedagogical sensitivity.
Freedom of thought,
recommended by Jahr, is inserted in a troubled and insecure socio-cultural
context in relation to the methods of education. The ideal of freedom reached
the whole of Europe and conflicted with the authoritative methods of the time.
Thus, Jahr privileged an education of the person as protagonist, based on the
freedom and autonomy of the individual. Overcoming an authoritative process
that dictates contents and behaviors is assumed as passive learning by the
learner, according to certain ideologies. In various articles, elements of this
pedagogical method are found, completely new for the time and, despite all
advances in this field, they still haven’t been applied. The author points out
the danger of manipulation in
building the character, and adopting a previously established target without
allowing space for discernment and free admission. The actual objectives of
science and even of the sacred books would have designated purposes, once, both
by omission and by the partial selection of texts and contents, it is possible
to target the building of character [Gesinnung]
according to the interest of certain ideologies. For Jahr this “it is a misdeed
to breed arbitrary characters this way, which renders freedom of thought
factually impossible”[3].
Jahr suggests the initial
democratization of education and breakthrough of training. This essentially means opening space for freedom of
thinking, which in turn includes and affirms the diversity of thinking. “Reason
and science, the highest authority of people”[4], also have an effect on the
already existing traces of character, enabling a change of moral behaviors and
paradigms of any nature. “Methodologically it is not acceptable to present only
what is suitable and to suppress unsuitable facts, or to deny or to manipulate
them at will”[5].
In dealing with academic
education, Jahr highlights the importance of different disciplines in the
building of character. Knowledge and character building are inseparable and
require a transversal approach. “The different disciplines need to present not only
knowledge through acquisition, but values through assimilation and truths
through discovery”[6]. Freedom and autonomy identify the person, but do not
distance them from their surroundings.
Jahr is overly concerned with
the seriousness of the moment regarding life and the need for bioethical
education – education of the character. After tracing the main line between
relationship and the environment, oriental religions and philosophies, and
having drawn attention to the role of the sciences, he presents simple examples
that reveal the value of education in the life of a person. He questions the
elderly man who harms the environment, and questions the child who plucks
flowers and then throws them away[7]. The author emphasized and
wanted the main guidelines and theories to reach people and transform their way
of living into eco-friendly attitudes. This is the way to reach the public in
general, through popular education, so that theories and reflections gain
repercussion in the life of people and in collective life. The bioethical
reflections need to be converted into ethical actions and behaviors capable of
generating a continuous process of preservation and promotion of life in all
spheres.
The author dedicates a special
article, in 1930, focusing on an important methodological change. He suggests freedom of thought, instead of dictatorship of the character. Jahr
demands a change of methods contemplating different times from the one the
political system upheld used in education:
At a time in which the fascist sectors of the right
and left wing were already fostering the application, for the Republic of Weimar,
of the former models of paternalistic doctrine of the imperial times, Jahr
supported a model of interactive pedagogical association of information and
discourse in the classroom [Arbeitsunterricht], of respect for individual
values, with a moral interactive and non-directive discourse[8].
Sass signals the validation of
Jahr’s demands to democratize the process of character building and adds:
Currently, given the
considerable amplitude the international and intercultural dimensions took in
the field of ethics and bioethics, and recognizing the cultural and individual
differences of thinking, beliefs and attitudes, the focus of a discourse and
interactive education constitutes a better guarantee (of success)[9].
For academic education,
bioethics as an aforementioned discipline, in short, for the scientific
theories to reach the whole population and produce new practices in the daily
life of people, Jahr proposed the presentation of ethical behavior issues in
the mainstream media of his time. Effectively popular are the means of
communication that not only remain in the scope of specialists, which is what
usually happens with the written or spoken scientific media. Jahr suggests the
radio or daily newspaper, according to the Ethical social and sexual article in
the press, [Soziale und sexuelle Ethik in
der Tageszeitung], 1928, as aforementioned. Jahr
defends that the mass media should build thoughts and moral attitudes and
contribute
towards ethical education.
Today, the issue is to
identify between multiple new media with wider coverage, accessible to the
highest number of people. The challenge is to reach the population with an
adequate and attractive language. Without ignoring the fact that the media
mentioned by Jahr are still supported today with significant and popular
strength, the advances in this area should also be considered and which today
have achieved major popularity. Jahr’s mention of self-education [Selbsterziehung] makes reference to a new model of education that is
based on freedom and history of life per se as the protagonist. In times of
education, dictated in large by physical and verbal violence, the methodology
and ideological imposition envisaged other purposes for the good of the person
as a free protagonist of their own history and relevant participation in
society. Jahr’s concern was
finding ways of giving people an ethical reflection, which demonstrates his
conscience that the planet will not be saved through an ethical discourse that
is only present in the academic sphere.
Jahr advocates the freedom of
thought and defends the character-building capacity of this methodology,
including changes generated in the learners. Investment should be made in these
changes.
And if a new expected character is
not developing, we should not forget, that had happened under the old method
even more often. Additionally: a character acquired and formed by the self is
better than one just accepted from others, also better than a childish or
immature attitude towards character issues.[10].
On appointing and exposing the
bioethical imperative, Jahr makes immediate reference to the complex world of
relationships. The ethical education is, in this sense, the empowerment of the
human being towards multiple harmonic relationships. The primary matrix – the
relationship matrix – is at the same time the starting and finish point for
education.
Communion assumes a new
meaning, because if human beings only see themselves as individuals competing
against others, everyone will subside. Communion also remits to cooperation
where everyone wins, because it opens the possibility of maintaining life on
the planet.
In the theological sense,
education re-establishes the covenant with God, in which we connect and
reconnect with ourselves, as unique and invaluable beings, with others,
brothers and sisters, with creation and with God. The qualitative leap of
humanity is that each person leaves himself/herself and expands his/her
relationships as a form of promoting and sustaining life on the planet. The
main challenges left by Jahr, in the scope of education, are the free and
autonomous prominence of education itself. Full education is equally relevant.
According to Jahr, all of the disciplines – knowledge of different areas – contribute
towards the building of character. Even traces of character acquired previously
can be changed if education is based on freedom. Theoretically, the thinking of
Jahr and the reflections in the field of the current theological practice have
important interconnections. Education based on freedom of thought is a
challenge still today for the Christian community both in their internal
relationships and in the whole of society.
The integrated bioethical
conception of Fritz Jahr presupposes a look on life in all of its complexity:
An ethical approach that goes beyond specific and isolated behaviors, many
times dictated by tradition or external instances and not personally recognized
and assumed.
The conscience that ethical responsibility in relation
to the environment is an urgent cause that requires the engagement of each
human being, and of society as a whole, is being consolidated as a culture of
care. Given the interdependences between the human being and the environment,
the ecological challenges are also a question of existence. It is the crisis of
a world vision and of life from an ample spectrum. Therefore, it is not reduced
to a social facet where, with specific actions an effective response can be
given. The future is at stake. According to Leonardo Boff “this future can only
be guaranteed if we consider sustainability as a common denominator of all
forms of life and in our practices”[11]. It is about
understanding to be able to care for a living system, which supposes not just
continuous and complex relationships, but part of the meaning of the being pertinent to each other and their relevance to
the whole. The meaning of being in the world, however, is not depleted in the
natural sciences, although these are essential for the human being to be able
to decipher the laws of nature. The sciences themselves, as long as they remain open
to new discoveries, contribute towards a relationship of respect in terms of
creation that, while revealed, on the one hand, is concealed, on the other,
given the fact that its mysteries are not explored in full. Scientists should
include in their studies the possibilities of creativity and novelty of the
vital processes. The laws and organization
established in life also include vital dynamics that are always surprising.
Conclusion
The faith communities, based
on their own principles and teachings, are important spaces for ecological
debate and promoters of an eco-friendly lifestyle. The article about the
Bioethical Imperative of Fritz Jahr and other correlated reflections of the
author, presents important aspects that are still lacking further study and
could favor more appropriate responses from the ecological demands. Life as a
whole on the planet has a constant interconnection and interdependence, whose
subsistence is only possible if all of its existing forms are contemplated in
care and ethical responsibility. The perception of the necessary changes
permeates a continuous and efficient education process.
Christian communities
understand their contribution based on their faith as part of their mission, in
a dialog with other faith communities, without however, wanting to impose their
dogmas and principles.
References
1.
Boff L. Sustentabilidade, o que é – o que não é.
Petrópolis: Vozes. 2012, 165.
2.
Conselho Episcopal Latino-Americano, (CELAM):
Documento de Aparecida: texto conclusivo da V Conferência Geral do Episcopado
Latino-Americano e do Caribe: 13-31 de maio de 2007. 9. ed. São Paulo: Paulus,
2008
3.
Jahr F, Bio-Ethics, 1927. In. Sass HM; Muzur A. Fritz
Jahr and the Foundations of Global Bioethics, 2012, 1-4.
4.
Jahr F. Character dictate or freedom of thougtht? 1930. In: Sass HM;
Muzur A. Fritz Jahr and the Foundations of Global Bioethics, 2012, 25-27.
5.
SASS HM. El pensamiento bioético de Fritz Jahr 1927-1934. In: Aesthethika International Journal
on Subjectivity, Politics and the Arts. Vol. 6, (2), April 2011, 20-23.
[1] Doctor in
Theology, specialist in Bioethics, Professor of Theology and Bioethics at
Centro Universitário “Católica de Santa Catarina” (Catholic University Center),
in Joinville, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
[2]
Conselho Episcopal Latino-Americano, (CELAM): Documento de Aparecida. São
Paulo: Paulus, 2008, p. 330
[3]
Jahr F. Character dictate or freedom of thougtht? 1930. In: Sass HM; Muzur A.
Fritz Jahr and the Foundations of Global Bioethics, 2012, 25-27.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6]
Conselho Episcopal Latino-Americano, (CELAM): Documento de Aparecida. São
Paulo: Paulus, 2008, 329.
[7] Cf.
Jahr F, Bio-Ethics, 1927. In. Sass
HM; Muzur A. Fritz Jahr and the Foundations of Global Bioethics, 2012, 1-4.
[8]
SASS HM. El pensamiento bioético de Fritz Jahr 1927-1934. In: Aesthethika International Journal on Subjectivity, Politics
and the Arts. Vol. 6, (2), April 2011, 20-33.
[10] Jahr
F. Character dictate or freedom of thougtht? 1930. In: Sass HM; Muzur A. Fritz
Jahr and the Foundations of Global Bioethics, 2012, 25-27.
[11] Boff L. Sustentabilidade, o que
é – o que não é. Petrópolis: Vozes. 2012, 165.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário