Versión en español en este link

The defense of natural law begins with a fundamental affirmation: there is a common human nature and, therefore, certain human goods and requirements of justice that do not simply depend on culture, religion, or the will of the legislator. For precisely this reason, the encounter between cultures cannot be approached from a relativistic perspective according to which all practices and moral conceptions are equally acceptable. The dignity of every person, the essential equality of men and women, religious freedom, the protection of the innocent, and the respect owed to every human being provide standards by which cultural traditions—including the Western tradition itself—must be critically examined.

This video raises, in a deliberately provocative way, a question that deserves serious discussion: what happens when large-scale immigration brings into close contact societies that hold profoundly different views about the human person, the family, women, religion, or the relationship between civil and religious law? From the perspective of natural law, the answer can be neither contempt for immigrants because of their origins nor the uncritical acceptance of every cultural practice in the name of multiculturalism. If all human beings possess the same dignity, that principle must be applied universally. Cultural or religious interpretations that establish forms of discrimination incompatible with the equal legal dignity of persons can therefore be criticized, just as injustices within Western societies themselves must also be criticized.

The argument based on the State’s supposed ideological and religious “neutrality” contains an inherent contradiction. This alleged neutrality ultimately leads to a renunciation of one’s own identity—not only that of the politicians, but also that of the culture and tradition of the community that the politicians supposedly represents. Tolerance thus comes to be understood as a renunciation of being oneself simply because others who are different have arrived. This argument remains valid even for those who believe that values are nothing more than cultural expressions entirely relative to a particular people. A very recent example can be found in the controversy surrounding crucifixes in classrooms in countries with a Christian tradition. The fact that a school has one or more students who are atheists, Muslims, or Buddhists does not mean that removing the crucifix from the classroom gives greater importance to their traditions; rather, it reveals how little importance we attach to our own. By acting in this way, we risk being perceived by those who come from other cultures as individuals and communities without a clear identity or firm convictions. Such a perception can foster contempt for our culture and identity, because we ourselves give the impression that we have no identity or convictions worth preserving.

The real challenge, then, is not simply to ask how many immigrants a society can receive, but also which principles it is prepared to defend. A political community needs to preserve a moral and legal core that makes the common good possible: respect for human life and personal integrity, equality before the law, freedom of conscience, public security, personal responsibility, and the subjection of everyone to the same legal order. Natural law provides an especially valuable criterion here: it enables us to welcome and respect every person, regardless of origin, without turning cultural pluralism into moral relativism. The decisive question raised by this video might therefore be formulated as follows: Can a civilization defend human dignity if it has ceased to believe that there are truths about the human person and justice that are worth defending?

Diego Poole

//////////////////

Español:

La defensa de la ley natural parte de una afirmación fundamental: existe una naturaleza humana común y, por tanto, unos bienes y exigencias de justicia que no dependen simplemente de la cultura, de la religión o de la voluntad del legislador. Precisamente por eso, el encuentro entre culturas no puede plantearse desde un relativismo según el cual todas las prácticas y concepciones morales serían igualmente aceptables. La dignidad de toda persona, la igualdad esencial entre el varón y la mujer, la libertad religiosa, la protección del inocente y el respeto debido a cada ser humano constituyen criterios desde los que también deben ser examinadas críticamente las tradiciones culturales, incluida la propia tradición occidental.

Este vídeo plantea, de manera deliberadamente polémica, una cuestión que merece ser discutida: ¿qué sucede cuando una inmigración muy intensa pone en contacto sociedades que mantienen concepciones profundamente diferentes acerca de la persona, la familia, la mujer, la religión o la relación entre la ley civil y la ley religiosa? Desde la perspectiva de la ley natural, la respuesta no puede consistir ni en despreciar al inmigrante por su origen ni en aceptar acríticamente cualquier práctica en nombre del multiculturalismo. Si se afirma que todos los seres humanos poseen la misma dignidad, esa afirmación debe aplicarse universalmente. Por eso pueden someterse a crítica aquellas interpretaciones religiosas o culturales que establezcan discriminaciones incompatibles con la igual dignidad jurídica de las personas, del mismo modo que deben criticarse las injusticias existentes en las propias sociedades occidentales.