Page 366 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

O r t h o d o x y
The existential consequences of this modern anthropology
are immense. They appear first in bioethics. Most contempo-
rary bioethical problems arise from neglecting the relational
nature of the human being. Scientific progress often benefits
one human being at the expense of others, or even at the ex-
pense of human nature itself. Biomedical technology tends to
treat the human being in isolation, as though it were merely
an individual biological object. The transfer of human genes
into laboratory animals may cure disease, but it also opens the
possibility of altering human nature itself. Unless humanity
remembers that its own nature exists only in relation with
non-human nature, it risks losing human nature altogether.
The patristic understanding of the human being as relational
offers an indispensable criterion for bioethics, so that scien-
tific progress may enhance rather than destroy human iden-
tity.
The same problem appears in society. Modern democratic
systems still rest largely on the notion of the individual as
autonomous unit. Rights are understood as individual rights,
and freedom is conceived as the liberty to act so long as the
freedom of others is not violated. Natural law is then invoked
to reconcile individuals with society, and social contract theo-
ries attempt to prevent the war of all against all. Yet the his-
tory of modern societies shows how unresolved this tension
remains. Revolutions, upheavals, and recurring social crises
reveal that individualism cannot finally reconcile person and
community. The problem persists because the individual re-
mains isolated, even while relating to others.
The ecological crisis is perhaps the clearest sign of the fail-
ure of modern anthropology. This crisis stems directly from
the understanding of humanity as lord and proprietor of cre-
ation, autonomous and free from relation both to God and to
366