From Dr M. Asciak
One of the most important defining characteristics of the next legislature ought to be a commitment to ingrain in the Maltese people a stronger ethic of responsibility. There is still too much of a hangover from colonial times where, independent of one’s behaviour, others are left to foot the bill. Socialism did not help cure this chronic problem as people were collectively absolved of all responsibility for their and others’ futures. Care was guaranteed from the cradle to the grave irrespective of potential behavioural input. Behaviour at work is not so tied to responsible behaviour and one expects to receive the same benefits at work whether one pulls his weight or not. Meritocracy and flexibility do not loom high on many people’s horizon. Discrepancies and abuse of social security benefits (even on the part of employers) are also rife and need to be reined in steadily. The question of whether I have been responsible for myself and for others by carrying out my duties or not has to be made, and answered by all sectors and individuals in the country. This is the new challenge.
When Ludwig Erhard, the German Minister for the Economy in Konrad Adenauer’s government coined the phrase “social-market economy” for the first time, he did so with a strong emphasis on the ethic of each citizen shouldering his or her personal responsibility to society and themselves. He deemed it essential that all help from the State, rightly so, had to be coupled by an equal sharing of the responsibilities for creating wealth by all sectors and individuals in that same State. There could be no room for malingering and non-productive work. Digging a hole just to fill it again, or to pretend to do so, did not create any value added to the State. Malta would do well to take a leaf out of Erhard’s book.
There is an increasingly vociferous opinion, dealing with the issue of human life, to base ethical conclusion not so much on the deontological or objective moral criteria involved, but on criteria that are of a more utilitarian or consequential extraction. I say this because one ought to point out that the reasoning involved starts from a different premise, therefore, since the existence of a moral object becomes a relative issue for debate, rather than the absolute one that we have been accustomed to, then it is possible for people to reach all sorts of conclusions. The ‘thou shall not kill’ no longer carries with it the absolute respect that it was meant to have – a human life exists, then that human life ought to be
protected!
The inheritor of the original British utilitarian philosophy is of course analytical philosophy, which speaks of science and natural law only as one language among many others. The creation of a Babel of languages for analytical considerations leads of course to a theoretical plethora of ethical conclusions if one is a follower of such ethical systems. However, it would be well advised to remember that all language is set within a cultural contextual background. If I ask you to play football in a European setting, one automatically plays association football, without touching the ball with one’s hand. Not so in North America. It would be wise to remind those, of whom there are many, who are arguing from this analytical ethical tradition, that human life in Malta is understood within the cultural background of its Judeo-Christian tradition as fundamental respect to the dignity of human life from its conception. Of course the answer to this would be that this tradition is just a cultural myth among so many others and that there is no obligation for one to choose that myth over any of the others! The answer to that would not be easy, but as a good friend once said, it is a myth that is witnessed to by an ongoing tradition of verbal and written constancy. I would rather go along with a myth that is witnessed to, where the central protagonist involved raised several people and himself from the dead. I have been a doctor for 28 years. I have never been able to do that myself or seen others do it. So my bet is on this myth!
Harry Vassallo’s and the Council of Europe’s recent suggestion to de-criminalize abortion, does not sit well with this myth. The whole idea of this myth and our law is to value the fundamental right to all life equally as a moral object independent of intention or circumstances. As we all know intentions and circumstances do not change the moral object but may lessen the extent of the guilt, if not nullify it completely. Harry, and it seems some friends in the Council of Europe, want to remove the embryo’s right to life as a moral object in our law. As a good lawyer with our tradition, his main remit should be to concentrate on the last two parameters rather than on the first. Just because he may have clients that have been absolved from guilt in court of committing murder, does not responsibly imply that murder should be removed from our statute books!
Michael Asciak
BIRKIRKARA