The man paused his after-dinner stroll, attracted by the butcher shop’s brightly lit window. He was not hungry, but his eyes naturally went to his favorite kinds of sausage, and he could imagine the aroma and taste even through the glass. Why, he wondered, if all these varieties are basically the same ingredients, are some important to me but not others?
The man paused his after-dinner stroll, attracted by the butcher shop’s brightly lit window. He was not hungry, but his eyes naturally went to his favorite kinds of sausage, and he could imagine the aroma and taste even through the glass. Why, he wondered, if all these varieties are basically the same ingredients, are some important to me but not others?
The difference, he admitted, was his subjective preference. All the meats were of good quality and would nourish; some just gave him more pleasure than others. As he considered the matter further, he realized that much of what was important to him was built on the “merely subjectively satisfying” — moving toward pleasure and away from dislikes. He also could distinguish this from the useful: as long as his comb, toothbrush and spoon worked, he didn’t bother with their elegance.
And, taking one more step, he recognized that things like honesty and goodness, beauty and responsibility, loyalty and reverence were valuable in themselves. Their worth was not measured by his likes and dislikes; rather, his life was measured by these fundamental moral attitudes.
The strolling man was Dietrich von Hildebrand, the great German theologian and philosopher (1889- 1977). This butcher-shop epiphany was a founding insight into his “phenomenological realism,” a fancy term for what happened in front of that window: to look critically at one’s everyday experiences, going below the immediate appearances to seek their meaning, identify the objective values that are revealed to the observant, and then give the due response to those values.
While his insights began at a butcher shop, he became alarmed as early as 1921 about the far deeper moral and ultimately physical butchery of Hitler’s National Socialism and the depravity that would methodically murder millions and sought to enslave the world. His outspoken criticism was not based in politics, economics or personal advantage; it arose from his Catholic faith and moral sense of justice. It earned him a death sentence “in absentia,” becoming the top “most-wanted” by the Gestapo. Forced to flee his native Germany, he went to Italy, Austria, France, Portugal, and in 1940 finally barely escaped by night to the United States.
Von Hildebrand is an especially relevant guide for today’s tensions; he survived brutal injustice and suffered for his courage. As we sort through issues of race, abortion, immigration, political divisions, sexual identity, economic recovery and so much more that fills the headlines, that shop window calls to all of us, regardless of our stance or situation, to examine our fundamental moral attitudes as we seek to fulfill the Golden Rule in practice: to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Are my convictions primarily ruled by my subjective preferences: life arranged to please me and advance my own interests? Do I confuse the useful with the truly valuable-in-itself? Do I overwhelm my mental inbox with news and commentary that do not inform but inflame me? Do I immediately dismiss people or perspectives that would unsettle my way of thinking? Are my views formed by what is good, true and valuable in itself, revealed by God whether in created being or directly by his son, Jesus?
While Von Hildebrand wrote these words 70 years ago, we can read them along with today’s news:
As long as we blindly disregard the moral values of other persons, as long as we do not distinguish the positive value which inheres in truth, and the negative value which is proper to error, as long as we do not understand the value which inheres in the life of human persons, and the negative value attached to an injustice, we will be incapable of moral goodness. As long as we are only interested in the question of whether something is subjectively satisfying or not, whether it is agreeable or not, instead of asking whether it is something important, whether in itself it is beautiful, good, whether it should be for its own sake, we cannot be morally good.
The soul of every morally good attitude is abandonment to that which is objectively important, is interest in a thing because it has value. Two men are, for example, witnesses of an injustice which is being inflicted upon a third person. The one who in every situation asks only whether something is agreeable to himself or not will not be concerned about it because he calculates that no personal damage to himself can result from the other’s injury. The second man, on the contrary, is willing to take suffering upon himself rather than remain disinterested in the injustice which is about to be done to the third person. For the second man, the preponderant question is not whether something is agreeable to him or not, but whether it is important in itself. This one behaves morally well.
Each person is created in the image of God. Von Hildebrand, who Pope Pius XII called a 20th-century doctor of the Church, challenges us to ask: If all are basically the same, why are some important to me but not others? Moving from insight to action will not be easy, and no one of us can construct the ideal just society. But we can strive in our individual interactions to respond to the value of each other and merit the words: “This one behaves morally well.”
Father Tom Knoblach is pastor of Annunciation Parish in Mayhew Lake and Sacred Heart Parish in Sauk Rapids. He also serves as consultant for healthcare ethics for the Diocese of St. Cloud.
© Getty Images/Rawpixelrs