Jesus provides us with a motive for acting, viz., the love of God, which in practical terms produces a love of our neighbours. That’s why he fed the people with an actual meal of loaves and fishes as well as preaching the words of life. I am always impressed when I visit a parish to learn from the pastor how remarkably well the people put love into practice by. e.g., supporting or participating in the Vincent de Paul Society, by serving on various parish committees and by making the liturgy a fitting expression of our faith. The behaviour of someone whose decisions come from such love will be different from those who act out of self-interest. Consider finances. Where love is the activating principle, a business will be viewed primarily as a service to its clientele, and the owners will look for ways to minimize the cost of their produce. Imagine a meeting of the board of directors of the Toronto Blue Jays whose main purpose was to lower the price of admission so as to allow as many ordinary people as possible to attend the games. On the other hand, if profit is the main concern, the question would be, “How much more can we charge and get away with it?”
Saint John Henry Newman was vividly aware of the significance of a difference in motive. In fact, he went as far as to say that arguments were a waste of time for interlocutors who had radically different starting points. He illustrated this view by examining the doctrine of the Trinity that as Catholics we recognize as the beginning and the climax of our faith. Newman began with a fact: the full divinity of Jesus is ambiguously described in the New Testament. Sometimes it is clearly affirmed, as in Thomas’s cry after the resurrection: “My Lord and My God!” But elsewhere the doctrine seems to be questionable, as when Jesus said, “The Father is greater than I.” Such ambiguity is even more pronounced in references to the Holy Spirit. Such texts present no difficulty for us Catholics because our starting point is twofold: Scripture and Tradition. And Tradition, as we find it stated in the Nicene Creed, for instance, is clearly and definitively trinitarian. But others, whose starting point is the Bible and the Bible alone, have been led to deny that Jesus is fully divine, the Jehovah Witnesses being one such group. Newman would say there’s nothing to be gained in arguing the point because the two sides have different starting positions, with the result that each one is perfectly logical and therefore completely defensible within its own system.
Let me further illustrate Newman’s observation about the uselessness of most arguments. Again, I begin with a fact: there is no essential difference between a child about to be born and one that has just been delivered. Saint John Paul II argued thus: “Since you accept that infanticide is illegal, you should, to be logical, declare it illegal to kill a child before it has been born.” But a philosophy professor at Princeton University, Peter Singer by name, reverses the arguments. He would say rather that, since it is legal to kill a baby before it is born, it should also be legal to kill it after it has been born: “Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.” And, granted his premise, Singer is eloquent in its defence: once the child has been born, the doctors can examine its reflexes and its intelligence before deciding whether to kill it or to let it live As with the disagreement about the Trinity, so here; no debate is possible because the two sides have different first principles. As Singer himself notes, “the Pope and I have the only logically defensible positions in this matter,” and this is indeed the case, as each is the necessary consequence of its basic convictions. For the Pope, human life is sacred as God given; but for Singer, “The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is mediaeval” (and we all know that there is nothing more contemptible than to be mediaeval). His starting point, then, is that a human being has somehow to justify his right to continue living. You can readily accept, I am sure, that he would be an advocate of euthanasia, including the killing of people who are experiencing dementia, a position I recently heard a politician defend in a radio interview. After all, if a horse breaks its leg, we shoot it, don’t we?