H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. RIP
A gentleman, a philosopher, a physician, a proud "Texian," a brilliant raconteur, and a clear-eyed defender of liberty has died.
Ronald Bailey|Jun. 22, 2018 3:10 pm
·
·
· 
·
· 【上图摄于2007年南京生命伦理学国际大会，由孙慕义教授主持会议】
· Tris Engelhardt, age 77, was a gentleman, a philosopher, a physician, a brilliant conversationalist, and a clear-eyed defender of liberty. Tris was a proud (not to say prideful) sixth generation "Texian" who would occasionally let drop the fact that in his youth he had served as a deputy sheriff in the Lone Star State. He taught philosophy at Rice University and medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine. Tris was the author of the seminal work of ethics, The Foundations of Bioethics (1986) as well as The Foundations of Christian Bioethics (2000) and much, much else.
I first got to know Tris at a Liberty Fund colloquium on bioethics in the early 1990s. I was hooked. Subsequently I had the good fortune to run into him at many later such meetings. Conversation with Tris was always intellectually serious and yet somehow completely joyful, as my wife Pamela Friedman put it this morning as we both mourned the death of this splendid man. The mere anticipation of getting together and talking with Tris would make my month. It is a great sadness that I will never see him again.
It was not as though we agreed on everything. Far from it. After all, Tris was a fervent Orthodox Christian and I am a longtime atheist. Tris was raised Roman Catholic but converted to Orthodoxy in the early 1990s. When I asked him why, he explained that he had found Roman Catholic Scholasticism intellectually and spiritually unsatisfying. "Roman Catholics write love manuals; Orthodox Christians make love," is how he explained the differences between those two branches of Christianity.
We got along because Tris enthusiastically practiced what he preached: A person can be friends with people with whom he disagrees. Tris had many such friends.
Tris was a great and persuasive proponent of human liberty. His book, The Foundations of Bioethics, was motivated by his attempt to ground a secular bioethics on a univeral understanding of the good life that could be justified using general rational arguments. To his "dismay and sorrow," that project proved to be impossible. Why? Because modern Enlightenment societies encompass multiple conceptions of the good. In his review of the book, theologian Walter Brueggeman offers a pretty good summation of Tris' arguments:
Underlying and directing this entire project is Engelhardt's definitional condition that morality involves "a peaceable bond among persons." By this he means that any discernment or resolution of canons of moral probity and authority must avoid recourse to force. In other words, "peaceful negotiation" is the fundamental basis of agreement in resolving moral controversies; therefore, mutual respect for personal self-determination—the negative moral principle of autonomy—is the one absolute, foundational principle binding all moral agents. No person or group has moral authority to force their beliefs or judgments upon other persons without the latter's consent, or unless they have already removed themselves from the peaceable moral community by violating the autonomy of others.
Since there is no universal morality, secular bioethicists could not therefore declare as being somehow intrinsically wrong such practices as in vitro fertilization, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem research, and human genetic engineering.
As I explained a while back, Engelhardt recognized that values exist in an incommensurable plurality. He pointed out that various moral communities "do not share sufficient premises to resolve differences in ethical values" and "do not mutually recognize any authority competent to resolve differences."
So how do we all get along if we cannot all agree on a common morality? Engelhardt suggested that all that seems to work are procedural institutions that allow diverse values to be expressed, like free markets and limited democracy. Even then there is no a priori moral justification for agreeing to abide by the procedures. But once such procedures have been agreed upon, they enable spontaneous orders to emerge that will have actual moral content, like the enforcement of contracts and the protection of various civil rights.
Engelhardt argued that any effort to construct a morality that can be shared by "moral strangers," that is, people living and believing in different moral communities, must have two cardinal characteristics: First, a recognition that there is no canonical warrant for a particular morality. One cannot in principle determine which moral intuitions should trump. This means that one cannot with sound argument, using discursive reason, reach secular agreement. Second, such a modest morality must recognize the fact of the actual plurality of moralities.
His correct conclusion is that the only way forward for humanity is the peaceable moral community in which people with differing moral views agree to disagree.
A great man has died and we are all much poorer for his passing.
To get a better sense of the man, please take a brief moment to read this brief anecdote about Tris' custom of ordering three beers every night.
Ronald Bailey is science correspondent for Reason magazine and the author, most recently, of The End of Doom (2015).
77岁的Tris Engelhardt是一位绅士，一位哲学家，一位医生，一位杰出的健谈者，一位目光锐利的自由捍卫者。Tris是一个自豪的（不说傲慢的）第六代“德克萨斯人”，他偶尔会丢掉一个事实：在他年轻的时候，他曾担任过孤星州的副警长。他在莱斯大学教哲学，在贝勒医学院教医学。TrIS伦理学的开创性著作，有生命伦理学的基础（1986），更有基督教生物伦理学的基础（2000），还有许多其他的作品。
20世纪90年代初，我在一个自由基金研讨会上认识Tris，我被他所倾覆。后来，我有幸在许多次会议上碰见了他。与Tris的谈话总是理智的，但不知何故是完全快乐的，就像我妻子Pamela Friedman今天早上所说的那样，我们都为这位杰出的人的死而哀悼。仅仅是期待和Tris聚在一起聊天就成了我的一大享受。但今天，我再也不能与其相见了，何等悲哀。我们似乎没有达成一致意见。远非如此。毕竟，Tris是一个狂热的正统基督徒，我是一直是一个无神论者。Tris在20世纪90年代就受洗于罗马公教，但后又皈依了正统教义。当我问他为什么时，他解释说他发现了罗马天主教的经院哲学，在智力上和精神上都不令人满意。罗马天主教徒书写爱情手册，而正统基督徒做“爱的使者”，他是如何解释这两个基督教分支之间的差异的。我们相处得很好，因为崔斯热情地实践了他所宣扬的话：一个人可以和他不同意的人交朋友。Tris有很多这样的朋友。Tris是人类自由的伟大和有说服力的支持者。他的著作《生命伦理学的基础》的动机是他试图在世俗的生命伦理社会建立一种世俗的生命伦理学，它可以用一般的理性论证来证明好的生活是合理的。对于他的“沮丧和悲伤”，这个“工程”证明是不可能的。为什么？因为现代启蒙社会包含了许多关于善的概念。在他对这本书的评论中，神学家Walter Brueggeman对崔斯的论点提供了很好的总结：这整个项目的基础和指导是恩格尔哈特的定义条件，道德涉及“人与人之间和平的纽带”，这意味着对道德正直和权威的任何辨别或解决必须避免诉诸武力。换言之，“和平谈判”是解决道德争议的基本策略；因此，尊重自主的消极道德原则是一个绝对的基本原则，其可以约制所有道德代理人。没有任何人或团体愿意由道德权威强迫他们的信仰或判断力，服从于他人同意，或者除非他们已经通过违反他人控制而从温友好的道德共同体中解脱出来。由于没有普遍的道德，世俗生物伦理学家不能因此宣称在某种程度上是错误的，如体外受精、流产、安乐死、胚胎干细胞研究和人类基因工程。
正如我不久前解释的那样，恩格尔哈特认识到，价值观存在于不可通约的多元化之中。他指出，各个道德团体“没有足够的前提来解决道德价值观上的差异”，“不承认任何有权解决分歧的权力机构”。那么，如果我们都不能就共同的道德达成一致，我们如何相处呢？恩格尔哈特认为，所有这些似乎都是程序上的机制，允许表达不同的价值观，比如自由市场和有限的民主。即便如此，也没有先验的道德理由同意遵守这些程序。但是，一旦商定了这些程序，就会产生具有实际道德内容的自发命令，例如执行合同和保护各种公民权利。恩格尔哈特认为，任何建设道德的努力都必须具有两个基本特征：第一，认识到没有规范的理由来支持特定的道德，这是“道德异乡人”，也就是生活和信仰不同道德共同体的人所能分享的。原则上，谁也不能决定哪种道德直觉应该占上风。这就意味着，一个人不能用合理的论据，运用话语的理由，达成世俗的协议。第二，这种宽容的道德必须承认道德的实际多元性这一事实。他的正确结论是，人类前进的唯一途径是和平的道德共同体，在这个社会中，有不同道德观点的人同意不同的意见。一个伟人死了，我们都为他的去世而失落。为了更好地了解这位智者，请花点功夫重温与追忆Tris每天晚上痛饮三杯的豪迈。
（孙慕义复译）
【罗纳德·贝利是“理性”杂志的科学记者，也是“末日”(2015)的作者】
（摩罗编辑） |