Two views of the human person. Ethical decisions: why "exceptionless norms"?

Theoretical differences between the teachings of the U.S. bishops and many moral theologians have left Catholic medical professionals puzzled about whose advice to follow. Although three concepts have influenced the development of medical ethics--physicalism, ecclesiastical positivism, and personalism--the real source of disagreement is two different approaches to understanding the person: the objective and the subjective. Objectivists see persons as living organisms subject to natural laws and unique among animals because they can develop cultures, control the environment, and exercise critical thought. According to the subjective approach, persons are free subjects who transform the objective world into one of meaning. They find reality only in the culture and its social forms, arts, history, and theories. The objective approach identifies basic human needs that transcend cultures and it defends exceptionless moral norms; the subjective demands that the person be free to decide each situation's morality. Objectivity is preferable because it is supported by Catholic tradition, which trusts human reason to arrive at universal ethical truths, and leads to an ethics grounded in an understanding that is transcultural and objectively verifiable. In the future the Church's moral teachings on abortion, euthanasia, and other life issues will not change. They will, however incorporate subjective insights that emphasize the person's uniqueness, sociological conditioning, conscientious responsibility, and moral evolution.