Bringing Life, Peace, and Justice Together: Further Reflections on the Consistent Life Ethic

by John Whitehead

—

Note: This article discusses suicide.

—

A decade ago, I wrote an article for Rehumanize in which I argued for a particular understanding of the Consistent Life Ethic. I proposed that Consistent Life Ethic activists focus their attention on four major forms of socially approved killing—abortion, assisted suicide/euthanasia, the death penalty, and war—and I offered a rationale for this focus.

After a subsequent 10 years of activism and reflection, I would no longer argue for the understanding of the Consistent Life Ethic I proposed in that article. My earlier understanding was too narrow for the extraordinary diversity of Consistent Life Ethic activism.

As I acknowledged in the original piece, I have no authority to require that other activists adopt a particular understanding of the Consistent Life Ethic—in fact, no one has such authority. However, I will at least try to explain what the Ethic has come to mean for me both intellectually and practically, as an activist.

Defining the Consistent Life Ethic

The people and groups who identify as following the “Consistent Life Ethic” (or who use similar terms such as the “Seamless Garment” or “Whole Life Ethic”) are varied. Consistent Life Ethic activism includes people of different faiths and no faith at all; different political persuasions; and different understandings of what the Consistent Life Ethic means. 

Despite these differences, a common thread unites these varied people and groups. This common thread, which I would identify as “the Consistent Life Ethic,” could be defined as follows:

The Consistent Life Ethic is the principle that activism devoted to what are typically called “life issues” (e.g., opposing abortion, assisted suicide/euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc.) and activism devoted to what are typically called “peace and justice issues” (e.g., opposing war, the death penalty, racial and economic injustice, etc.) are complementary and should be pursued together.

This simultaneous concern with both life issues and peace and justice issues is the fundamental idea that recurs among the people and groups I have encountered in my years of Consistent Life Ethic activism. 

A related idea that I have found in most Consistent Life Ethic circles is that such combined life/peace/justice activism challenges the conventional ideological division of Left vs. Right, at least as this division turns up in the United States.

An Array of Differences    

My definition of the Consistent Life Ethic is fairly broad because I think any adequate definition of the Ethic must be broad. Among the people and groups who share the common principle of combining life, peace, and justice activism, I have encountered many different views about the details and application of this idea. 

To provide a non-exhaustive list of the ways in which Consistent Life Ethic activists differ:

1. Scope. Consistent Life Ethic activists differ about precisely which injustices or problems fall within the scope of the Ethic. (That is why I put “etc.,” when listing life issues and peace and justice issues.) Some people would argue, as I did in my original article, that the Consistent Life Ethic should encompass opposition only to direct killing, such as abortion and the death penalty. Others would argue the Consistent Life Ethic should include subtler, more indirect injustices that nevertheless can still end people’s lives, such as poverty, racism, ableism, and xenophobia. These injustices could include public policies that, while not involving killing, have especially harmful consequences for the most vulnerable groups in society. Some people limit the Ethic’s concern for protecting life to protecting human life. Others extend the Ethic to include protecting non-human animals from violence as well. Others would include concern for the natural environment as part of the Consistent Life Ethic. Yet another area of difference, which comes up more rarely but is still significant, is whether the Consistent Life Ethic should include opposition to forms of violence that are not legally and socially approved. For example, should Consistent Life Ethic activists be concerned not only with stopping the death penalty but with stopping criminal homicides and other violent crimes? One view might be that including such violence within the Ethic is unnecessary since society is already opposed to it (again, this is the view I once argued for). Another view might be that, as long as such violence occurs—and in some societies it occurs all too often—those who want to protect life should be concerned with it.   
   

2. Qualifications. Consistent Life Ethic activists differ over whether the Ethic should be understood as opposing all violence without exception or whether the Ethic can allow for justifying violence under certain circumstances. Further, those who believe the Ethic occasionally allows for violence differ on which types of violence are permissible and under which circumstances. One frequent subject of disagreement is whether the Consistent Life Ethic can allow for a country waging war to defend itself against an aggressor. World War II is the classic historical example brought up in debates over this point. More recently, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has elicited differing responses from Consistent Life Ethic activists and other peace activists. A variant of this point of contention is whether the Ethic allows for violence in personal self-defense. Differing views on this question can also lead to different attitudes among Consistent Life Ethic activists toward gun ownership. A notable historical example of a nonviolence advocate making an exception for personal self-defense is the civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer. An opponent of racial segregation, abortion, and the Vietnam War, Hamer nevertheless said at least once that she was willing to use a gun to protect herself from racist violence. Another significant disagreement I have encountered is over assisted suicide/euthanasia. Some activists who are otherwise committed to opposing killing will make a (perhaps qualified) exception for people who voluntarily end their own lives. A subtler version of disagreements about suicide is whether the Consistent Life Ethic permits real or threatened self-harm as a means of protest. For instance, are prolonged hunger strikes a morally acceptable form of protest? (On reflection, I would be inclined to say “no,” but I recognize some of my fellow activists would disagree.)  
   

3. Application. Consistent Life Ethic activists differ on how best to pursue the various life, peace, and justice causes. The role of the government and legal measures can often be a point of contention. For example, some activists hold that addressing poverty requires government assistance to the poor and other public policy measures. Others hold that the government is too morally compromised and therefore direct action by activists is the best way to help the poor (this attitude is similar to the approach championed by Dorothy Day). Some activists hold that stopping abortion requires legally prohibiting the practice. Others are more ambivalent about or even opposed to the legal prohibition of abortion. Aimee Murphy, in her book Rehumanize: A Vision to Secure Human Rights for All, describes differences among Consistent Life Ethic activists about responding to police brutality. Some activists favor reforming the police, others favor defunding the police, others favor abolishing it.  

Differences over scope, qualification, application, and other questions are often fiercely contested by Consistent Life Ethic activists. 

Nevertheless, I think the unifying theme of combining life issues with peace and justice issues can be found across all these different divisions. Further, I think people with all these differing views have commitment, passion, and ingenuity that can benefit Consistent Life Ethic activism. 

Recognizing Limitations

I recognize that my definition of the Consistent Life Ethic as fundamentally the combination of life, peace, and justice activism has its limitations.

Because my definition of the Ethic is so broad and encompasses all the differences described above, it cannot be considered a clear, precise ethical philosophy. If the Consistent Life Ethic allows for such varied views of which issues are covered by the Ethic and whether the Ethic allows exceptions to nonviolence, then intellectual rigor is impossible. 

Other activists or groups might offer more precise and rigorous definitions of the Consistent Life Ethic. These definitions might well have merit, but they would probably also exclude some of the other activists and groups who advocate for the Ethic.

My definition of the Consistent Life Ethic also means that the Ethic cannot be considered a coherent program for political action. The diversity of views on how best to protect life and promote peace and justice means that insisting on a specific political agenda or strategy would also exclude some activists and groups. 

Rather than being a definition for a philosophy or political program, my understanding of the Consistent Life Ethic is a definition for a grassroots movement: a broad, diverse assembly of people and groups that have a general idea in common.

Identifying Strengths

If the Consistent Life Ethic, as I define it, does not offer a philosophy or political program, what does it offer? I would identify three major positive contributions that a movement combining life issues with peace and justice issues offers: direct activism, persuasion across ideological lines, and cultural change.

Direct Activism. Activists within this movement contribute to whichever individual issues they choose to work on. They variously help protect children in the womb from abortion, promote justice for immigrants, campaign to stop the death penalty, reduce gun violence, care for the environment, and so on. While the precise collection of life, peace, and justice issues might vary among different activists, contributing to any good cause is still worthwhile and valuable.

Persuasion across Ideological Lines. By combining concern with life, peace, and justice issues, activists within the movement have a capacity to persuade people whom other activists might not be able to reach. Some people who would never listen to a more conventional pro-life or social justice activist might be willing to listen to a Consistent Life Ethic activist.

This potential to persuade is partly because Consistent Life Ethic activists can connect issues and make arguments so as to shed fresh light on these issues. For example, they can highlight how war or cruel immigration policies harm unborn children. Or they can highlight how poverty and ableism make people vulnerable to coercion into assisted suicide. Such arguments can appeal to the values of people on the other side of these issues in a way that more mainstream arguments might not.

Consistent Life Ethic activists also have the capacity to persuade for a general psychological reason: people are more inclined to listen to those they see as like them. Mainstream peace and justice activists might be more likely to listen to a fellow peace and justice activist on life issues. Mainstream pro-life activists might be more likely to listen to a fellow pro-life activist on peace and justice issues. Having significant common ground can create a certain psychological comfort that makes communication easier.

Cultural Change. Activists within the movement contribute to changing the larger public conversation about life, peace, and justice issues. By combining these types of issues, they break the maddeningly rigid Left vs. Right categorization that dominates thinking about ethics and politics. 

The conventional understanding that the life issues and peace and justice issues are opposed to each other is a terrible blight on our public life in the United States and elsewhere. Consistent Life Ethic activists challenge this conventional understanding and send the vitally important message that life, peace, and justice issues are wholly compatible and should be pursued together. Changing cultural attitudes on these issues is a very significant contribution. 

A Consistent Life Ethic movement defined by a general commitment to combining life, peace, and justice issues can play a valuable and much-needed role in our world.

Conclusion

The understanding of the Consistent Life Ethic I have outlined here is purely my own. I appreciate that many Consistent Life Ethic activists and groups will not agree with it. Some would argue for an understanding that sets clearer boundaries for which issues fall under the Ethic and which do not. Some would argue for a more definite view on whether the Ethic permits exceptions to nonviolence. Some would argue for specific political stances and strategies.

All such disagreements are fine. I do not insist on others accepting my understanding of the Ethic. As I have said, differing understandings of the Consistent Life Ethic are part of the movement’s diversity. Further, having multiple organizations that advocate for the Ethic, such as Rehumanize International, the Consistent Life Network, and Feminists Choosing Life of New York, allows for different activists to adhere to their own distinct understandings.      

For my part, I would simply say that my years of Consistent Life Ethic activism have shown me that the differences within the movement are unlikely ever to be resolved. We are a decentralized, grassroots movement in which it is not possible for any one school of thought to ensure its interpretation of the Ethic prevails. I do not want the movement to become bogged down in arguing about differences or to exclude people who have ideas, energy, and talents to contribute because of such differences. 

I think a better approach is to tolerate disagreements and find ways to work together on the areas where we agree. By doing so, we can advance our common goal of promoting life, peace, and justice in our world.