THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLE
RIGHTS AND DUTIES
THE ENVIRONMENT
RIGHTS AND DUTIES
THE ENVIRONMENT
43. “The reality of human solidarity, which is a benefit for us, also imposes
a duty”[105]. Many people today would claim that they owe nothing to
anyone, except to themselves. They are concerned only with their rights, and
they often have great difficulty in taking responsibility for their own and
other people's integral development. Hence it is important to call for a renewed
reflection on how rights presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere
licence[106]. Nowadays we are witnessing a grave inconsistency. On
the one hand, appeals are made to alleged rights, arbitrary and non-essential in
nature, accompanied by the demand that they be recognized and promoted by public
structures, while, on the other hand, elementary and basic rights remain
unacknowledged and are violated in much of the world[107]. A link has
often been noted between claims to a “right to excess”, and even to
transgression and vice, within affluent societies, and the lack of food,
drinkable water, basic instruction and elementary health care in areas of the
underdeveloped world and on the outskirts of large metropolitan centres. The
link consists in this: individual rights, when detached from a framework of
duties which grants them their full meaning, can run wild, leading to an
escalation of demands which is effectively unlimited and indiscriminate. An
overemphasis on rights leads to a disregard for duties. Duties set a limit on
rights because they point to the anthropological and ethical framework of which
rights are a part, in this way ensuring that they do not become licence. Duties
thereby reinforce rights and call for their defence and promotion as a task to
be undertaken in the service of the common good. Otherwise, if the only basis of
human rights is to be found in the deliberations of an assembly of citizens,
those rights can be changed at any time, and so the duty to respect and pursue
them fades from the common consciousness. Governments and international bodies
can then lose sight of the objectivity and “inviolability” of rights. When this
happens, the authentic development of peoples is endangered[108]. Such
a way of thinking and acting compromises the authority of international bodies,
especially in the eyes of those countries most in need of development. Indeed,
the latter demand that the international community take up the duty of helping
them to be “artisans of their own destiny”[109], that is, to take up
duties of their own. The sharing of reciprocal duties is a more powerful
incentive to action than the mere assertion of rights.
44. The notion of rights and duties in development must also take account of
the problems associated with population growth. This is a very important
aspect of authentic development, since it concerns the inalienable values of
life and the family[110]. To consider population increase as the
primary cause of underdevelopment is mistaken, even from an economic point of
view. Suffice it to consider, on the one hand, the significant reduction in
infant mortality and the rise in average life expectancy found in economically
developed countries, and on the other hand, the signs of crisis observable in
societies that are registering an alarming decline in their birth rate. Due
attention must obviously be given to responsible procreation, which among other
things has a positive contribution to make to integral human development. The
Church, in her concern for man's authentic development, urges him to have full
respect for human values in the exercise of his sexuality. It cannot be reduced
merely to pleasure or entertainment, nor can sex education be reduced to
technical instruction aimed solely at protecting the interested parties from
possible disease or the “risk” of procreation. This would be to impoverish and
disregard the deeper meaning of sexuality, a meaning which needs to be
acknowledged and responsibly appropriated not only by individuals but also by
the community. It is irresponsible to view sexuality merely as a source of
pleasure, and likewise to regulate it through strategies of mandatory birth
control. In either case materialistic ideas and policies are at work, and
individuals are ultimately subjected to various forms of violence. Against such
policies, there is a need to defend the primary competence of the family in the
area of sexuality[111], as opposed to the State and its restrictive
policies, and to ensure that parents are suitably prepared to undertake their
responsibilities.
Morally responsible openness to life represents a rich social and economic
resource. Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks not
least to the size of their population and the talents of their people. On the
other hand, formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of
uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth
rates; this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies. The
decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called “replacement level”,
also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into
savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the
availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the “brain pool” upon which
nations can draw for their needs. Furthermore, smaller and at times miniscule
families run the risk of impoverishing social relations, and failing to ensure
effective forms of solidarity. These situations are symptomatic of scant
confidence in the future and moral weariness. It is thus becoming a social and
even economic necessity once more to hold up to future generations the beauty of
marriage and the family, and the fact that these institutions correspond to the
deepest needs and dignity of the person. In view of this, States are called to
enact policies promoting the centrality and the integrity of the family
founded on marriage between a man and a woman, the primary vital cell of
society[112], and to assume responsibility for its economic and fiscal
needs, while respecting its essentially relational character.
45. Striving to meet the deepest moral needs of the person also has important
and beneficial repercussions at the level of economics. The economy needs
ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an
ethics which is people-centred. Today we hear much talk of ethics in the world
of economy, finance and business. Research centres and seminars in business
ethics are on the rise; the system of ethical certification is spreading
throughout the developed world as part of the movement of ideas associated with
the responsibilities of business towards society. Banks are proposing “ethical”
accounts and investment funds. “Ethical financing” is being developed,
especially through micro-credit and, more generally, micro-finance. These
processes are praiseworthy and deserve much support. Their positive effects are
also being felt in the less developed areas of the world. It would be advisable,
however, to develop a sound criterion of discernment, since the adjective
“ethical” can be abused. When the word is used generically, it can lend itself
to any number of interpretations, even to the point where it includes decisions
and choices contrary to justice and authentic human welfare.
Much in fact depends on the underlying system of morality. On this subject
the Church's social doctrine can make a specific contribution, since it is based
on man's creation “in the image of God” (Gen 1:27), a datum which gives
rise to the inviolable dignity of the human person and the transcendent value of
natural moral norms. When business ethics prescinds from these two pillars, it
inevitably risks losing its distinctive nature and it falls prey to forms of
exploitation; more specifically, it risks becoming subservient to existing
economic and financial systems rather than correcting their dysfunctional
aspects. Among other things, it risks being used to justify the financing of
projects that are in reality unethical. The word “ethical”, then, should not be
used to make ideological distinctions, as if to suggest that initiatives not
formally so designated would not be ethical. Efforts are needed — and it is
essential to say this — not only to create “ethical” sectors or segments of the
economy or the world of finance, but to ensure that the whole economy — the
whole of finance — is ethical, not merely by virtue of an external label, but by
its respect for requirements intrinsic to its very nature. The Church's social
teaching is quite clear on the subject, recalling that the economy, in all its
branches, constitutes a sector of human activity[113].
46. When we consider the issues involved in the relationship between
business and ethics, as well as the evolution currently taking place in
methods of production, it would appear that the traditionally valid distinction
between profit-based companies and non-profit organizations can no longer do
full justice to reality, or offer practical direction for the future. In recent
decades a broad intermediate area has emerged between the two types of
enterprise. It is made up of traditional companies which nonetheless subscribe
to social aid agreements in support of underdeveloped countries, charitable
foundations associated with individual companies, groups of companies oriented
towards social welfare, and the diversified world of the so-called “civil
economy” and the “economy of communion”. This is not merely a matter of a “third
sector”, but of a broad new composite reality embracing the private and public
spheres, one which does not exclude profit, but instead considers it a means for
achieving human and social ends. Whether such companies distribute dividends or
not, whether their juridical structure corresponds to one or other of the
established forms, becomes secondary in relation to their willingness to view
profit as a means of achieving the goal of a more humane market and society. It
is to be hoped that these new kinds of enterprise will succeed in finding a
suitable juridical and fiscal structure in every country. Without prejudice to
the importance and the economic and social benefits of the more traditional
forms of business, they steer the system towards a clearer and more complete
assumption of duties on the part of economic subjects. And not only that. The
very plurality of institutional forms of business gives rise to a market which
is not only more civilized but also more competitive.
47. The strengthening of different types of businesses, especially those
capable of viewing profit as a means for achieving the goal of a more humane
market and society, must also be pursued in those countries that are excluded or
marginalized from the influential circles of the global economy. In these
countries it is very important to move ahead with projects based on subsidiarity,
suitably planned and managed, aimed at affirming rights yet also providing for
the assumption of corresponding responsibilities. In development programmes,
the principle of the centrality of the human person, as the subject
primarily responsible for development, must be preserved. The principal concern
must be to improve the actual living conditions of the people in a given region,
thus enabling them to carry out those duties which their poverty does not
presently allow them to fulfil. Social concern must never be an abstract
attitude. Development programmes, if they are to be adapted to individual
situations, need to be flexible; and the people who benefit from them ought to
be directly involved in their planning and implementation. The criteria to be
applied should aspire towards incremental development in a context of solidarity
— with careful monitoring of results — inasmuch as there are no universally
valid solutions. Much depends on the way programmes are managed in practice.
“The peoples themselves have the prime responsibility to work for their own
development. But they will not bring this about in isolation”[114].
These words of Paul VI are all the more timely nowadays, as our world becomes
progressively more integrated. The dynamics of inclusion are hardly automatic.
Solutions need to be carefully designed to correspond to people's concrete lives,
based on a prudential evaluation of each situation. Alongside macro-projects,
there is a place for micro-projects, and above all there is need for the active
mobilization of all the subjects of civil society, both juridical and physical
persons.
International cooperation requires people who can be part of the
process of economic and human development through the solidarity of their
presence, supervision, training and respect. From this standpoint, international
organizations might question the actual effectiveness of their bureaucratic and
administrative machinery, which is often excessively costly. At times it happens
that those who receive aid become subordinate to the aid-givers, and the poor
serve to perpetuate expensive bureaucracies which consume an excessively high
percentage of funds intended for development. Hence it is to be hoped that all
international agencies and non-governmental organizations will commit themselves
to complete transparency, informing donors and the public of the percentage of
their income allocated to programmes of cooperation, the actual content of those
programmes and, finally, the detailed expenditure of the institution itself.
48. Today the subject of development is also closely related to the duties
arising from our relationship to the natural environment. The environment
is God's gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards
the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole. When
nature, including the human being, is viewed as the result of mere chance or
evolutionary determinism, our sense of responsibility wanes. In nature, the
believer recognizes the wonderful result of God's creative activity, which we
may use responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or otherwise,
while respecting the intrinsic balance of creation. If this vision is lost, we
end up either considering nature an untouchable taboo or, on the contrary,
abusing it. Neither attitude is consonant with the Christian vision of nature as
the fruit of God's creation.
Nature expresses a design of love and truth. It is prior to us, and it
has been given to us by God as the setting for our life. Nature speaks to us of
the Creator (cf. Rom 1:20) and his love for humanity. It is destined to
be “recapitulated” in Christ at the end of time (cf. Eph 1:9-10; Col 1:19-20).
Thus it too is a “vocation”[115]. Nature is at our disposal not as “a
heap of scattered refuse”[116], but as a gift of the Creator who has
given it an inbuilt order, enabling man to draw from it the principles needed in
order “to till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). But it should also be stressed
that it is contrary to authentic development to view nature as something more
important than the human person. This position leads to attitudes of
neo-paganism or a new pantheism — human salvation cannot come from nature alone,
understood in a purely naturalistic sense. This having been said, it is also
necessary to reject the opposite position, which aims at total technical
dominion over nature, because the natural environment is more than raw material
to be manipulated at our pleasure; it is a wondrous work of the Creator
containing a “grammar” which sets forth ends and criteria for its wise use, not
its reckless exploitation. Today much harm is done to development precisely as a
result of these distorted notions. Reducing nature merely to a collection of
contingent data ends up doing violence to the environment and even encouraging
activity that fails to respect human nature itself. Our nature, constituted not
only by matter but also by spirit, and as such, endowed with transcendent
meaning and aspirations, is also normative for culture. Human beings interpret
and shape the natural environment through culture, which in turn is given
direction by the responsible use of freedom, in accordance with the dictates of
the moral law. Consequently, projects for integral human development cannot
ignore coming generations, but need to be marked by solidarity and
inter-generational justice, while taking into account a variety of contexts:
ecological, juridical, economic, political and cultural[117].
49. Questions linked to the care and preservation of the environment today
need to give due consideration to the energy problem. The fact that some
States, power groups and companies hoard non-renewable energy resources
represents a grave obstacle to development in poor countries. Those countries
lack the economic means either to gain access to existing sources of
non-renewable energy or to finance research into new alternatives. The
stockpiling of natural resources, which in many cases are found in the poor
countries themselves, gives rise to exploitation and frequent conflicts between
and within nations. These conflicts are often fought on the soil of those same
countries, with a heavy toll of death, destruction and further decay. The
international community has an urgent duty to find institutional means of
regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources, involving poor countries
in the process, in order to plan together for the future.
On this front too, there is a pressing moral need for renewed solidarity,
especially in relationships between developing countries and those that are
highly industrialized[118]. The technologically advanced societies can
and must lower their domestic energy consumption, either through an evolution in
manufacturing methods or through greater ecological sensitivity among their
citizens. It should be added that at present it is possible to achieve improved
energy efficiency while at the same time encouraging research into alternative
forms of energy. What is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of
energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to
them. The fate of those countries cannot be left in the hands of whoever is
first to claim the spoils, or whoever is able to prevail over the rest. Here we
are dealing with major issues; if they are to be faced adequately, then everyone
must responsibly recognize the impact they will have on future generations,
particularly on the many young people in the poorer nations, who “ask to assume
their active part in the construction of a better world”[119].
50. This responsibility is a global one, for it is concerned not just with
energy but with the whole of creation, which must not be bequeathed to future
generations depleted of its resources. Human beings legitimately exercise a
responsible stewardship over nature, in order to protect it, to enjoy its
fruits and to cultivate it in new ways, with the assistance of advanced
technologies, so that it can worthily accommodate and feed the world's
population. On this earth there is room for everyone: here the entire human
family must find the resources to live with dignity, through the help of nature
itself — God's gift to his children — and through hard work and creativity. At
the same time we must recognize our grave duty to hand the earth on to future
generations in such a condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and
continue to cultivate it. This means being committed to making joint decisions
“after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at
strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment,
which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom
we are journeying”[120]. Let us hope that the international community
and individual governments will succeed in countering harmful ways of treating
the environment. It is likewise incumbent upon the competent authorities to make
every effort to ensure that the economic and social costs of using up shared
environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by
those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations: the protection
of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international
leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting
the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet[121].
One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most
efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based on a realization that
the notion of “efficiency” is not value-free.
51. The way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats
itself, and vice versa. This invites contemporary society to a serious
review of its life-style, which, in many parts of the world, is prone to
hedonism and consumerism, regardless of their harmful consequences[122].
What is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption
of new life-styles “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and
communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which
determine consumer choices, savings and investments”[123]. Every
violation of solidarity and civic friendship harms the environment, just as
environmental deterioration in turn upsets relations in society. Nature,
especially in our time, is so integrated into the dynamics of society and
culture that by now it hardly constitutes an independent variable.
Desertification and the decline in productivity in some agricultural areas are
also the result of impoverishment and underdevelopment among their inhabitants.
When incentives are offered for their economic and cultural development, nature
itself is protected. Moreover, how many natural resources are squandered by
wars! Peace in and among peoples would also provide greater protection for
nature. The hoarding of resources, especially water, can generate serious
conflicts among the peoples involved. Peaceful agreement about the use of
resources can protect nature and, at the same time, the well-being of the
societies concerned.
The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert
this responsibility in the public sphere. In so doing, she must defend not only
earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone. She must
above all protect mankind from self-destruction. There is need for what might be
called a human ecology, correctly understood. The deterioration of nature is in
fact closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence: when
“human ecology”[124] is respected within society, environmental
ecology also benefits. Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that the
weakening of one places others at risk, so the ecological system is based on
respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good
relationship with nature.
In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic
incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These
are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of
society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a
natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if
human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up
losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental
ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the
natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to
respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not
only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social
relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the
environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in
himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties
while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality
and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and
damages society.
52. Truth, and the love which it reveals, cannot be produced: they can only
be received as a gift. Their ultimate source is not, and cannot be, mankind, but
only God, who is himself Truth and Love. This principle is extremely important
for society and for development, since neither can be a purely human product;
the vocation to development on the part of individuals and peoples is not based
simply on human choice, but is an intrinsic part of a plan that is prior to us
and constitutes for all of us a duty to be freely accepted. That which is prior
to us and constitutes us — subsistent Love and Truth — shows us what goodness
is, and in what our true happiness consists. It shows us the road to true
development.
No comments:
Post a Comment