11
《台灣醫學人文學刊》 第十九卷 第一、二期，2018 年 12 月，頁 11-18
Biologie,Bioethics and Biopolitics in Integrated Biotopes
整合的生物統思中之生物學,生命倫理學與 生命政治學
Hans Martin Sass.Ph.D.
12
BIOLOGIES, BIOETHICS AND BIOPOLITICS IN INTEGRATED BIOTOPES From Dragon Fu Xi to Pastor Fritz Jahr
Hans-Martin Sass, sasshm@aol.com
Abstract: For millennia, Asian and Western cultures and religions recognized the interdependence and interaction of all forms of life; educators and rulers called for support of health and happiness not only of individuals but also of families, communities and natural and cultural biotopes. Fritz Jahr defined the Bioethical Imperative – ‗Respect every living being as an end in itself and treat it, if possible, as such‘ - as an orientational tool for compassionate and competent human life and culture in healthy natural and social biotopes. This paper reviews visions and rules in the ethics and politics of bios across cultures and stresses the importance of bioethics and biopolitics for the 21th century.
Keywords: bios, biotope, bioethics, biopolitics, compassion, competence, cultivation, integration, interaction, healthy living
BIOS IS INTEGRATING, INTERDEPENDING, COOPERATING, COMPETING
There is a quest for autonomy, independence, self-determination, freedom in all of us.
Not to be enslaved, exploited, dominated by others might be an essential characteristic for all bios; for us humans it definitely has been a vision for millennia. Not to be forced by others to serve as a slave, not to be dependent on others for economic reasons, not to be exploited in situations of love, sex, business, not to be misguided by fake information, unfair incentives and outright fabrications and lies is a valuable goal. This human desire for self-determination has been called a human right and civil right, documented in national codes of rule and in declarations of international bodies, also proclaimed by philosophers and religious leaders to follow one‘s moral intuitions and/or God‘s commandments.
However, comparative biology and my own life experiences tell me that I myself and all other bios is not independent from other bios at all. I would not be without my mother and father; I would not live without foods and drinks, air to breathe, time to sleep, houses and dresses for protection, not without microbes in my intestine co-digesting foods with me and for me, not without machines and supermarkets for civilized and convenient life , not without electricity, cellphones and televisions for communication and networking, sex and love for fun and compassion, friends and colleagues for successful and enjoyable living and working.
And I am not alone in these interrelations: protons, neutrons, atoms, molecules are not independent either, but interact permanently with each other; so do microbes, plants, animals, original natural and agricultural biotopes, depending on oxygen, water and other support for live and prosperity; similarly, planets, suns, moons, milky ways, universes and multiverses interact with each other, are born and will die just like I myself. Bios is in permanent modification, depending on and influencing other bios. The multiverse and universe are not the same, as they were billions of years ago; our globe has dramatically over the last 100.000 years since our forefathers and foremother descended from the trees of Africa, traveled all over the globe, modified lands, waters, and bios and biotopes by technologies, houses, cities, walls, weapons, kingdoms, democracies, railroads, cars and internets. Biologies of microbes, plants, animals, and humans are different, but similar: ‗he er bu tong‘ – similar but different, hopefully in harmony, as Confucius recognized.24
The mythological dragon emperor Fu Xi over 3000 years ago, described the interrelatedness of all bios in detail, including heaven-and-earth, nature, individual humans, families, communities.25 Are the interactions and complementary polarities he describes between ying and yang, light and dark, creative and receptive, strong and weak, firm and yielding, male and female, etc. and the 8 elements and powers of interaction (dragon/heaven,
24 Cf. Zhai XM 2011 Diversified and in Harmony, but not Identical, in: Asian Bioethics Review 3(1)31-35
25 Legge J 1882 The Yi King, in: The Sacred Books of the East, vol. XVI. Oxford: Clarendon;
Wilhelm R (1968) The I Ching Book of Changes. London: Routledge; google: The 8 Trigrams of the I-Ching [visited 09-10-18]
13
earth/receptive, thunder/arousing, water/abysmal, mountain/stillness, wind/gentleness, fire/clinging fire, lake/joyousness) just prescientific models explaining, how the worlds of bios and we humans within them function, advising us how to survive and live happy and healthy depending on our different personal natures and biotopes, expressing the same understanding of interrelatedness as Einstein‘s model of physics, or Watson‘s and Crick‘s DNA deciphering, empowering and impacting in special combinations all individual, biological, social, political, and corporate bios?
THE BIO-ETHICAL IMPERATIVE
Is it selfish or altruistic to make love, to cooperate with colleagues and neighbors, to help fellow humans in need, to be kind to the microbes in our intestine? Fritz Jahr, an educator and Protestant pastor in the small German university town Halle a. d. Saale, argues that this is the wrong question and that interaction and integration, cooperation and competition are as essential for us humans as they are for all forms of bios. Elsewhere I have identified 8 C‘s essential for all forms of bios, but in special form for each species including the human bios: communication and cooperation, competence and competition, contemplation and calculation, compassion and cultivation26. We find these 8 C‘s in different combinations and strengths in all species, also differently in individuals of most species. Some species are more eusocial than we humans. Ants and bees use these 8 C‘s to fully integrate as individuals into their Volk serving the common good27. Individual eusocial insects never betray their community, but communities sometimes implode by still not well understood ‗colony collapse disorder‘. We humans would strongly reject the Nazi slogan ‗you ae nothing, your Volk is everything‘ and condemn the voluntary or manipulated suppression of individuality by hormones, social majorities, dictators, slaveholders.
We humans can and did hurt, betray, extort, violate and even torture and kill other humans and human communities. Adam slayed his brother Cain with his bare hands or with a stick; axes have been developed to clear forests and build houses, but they as well have and will be used to kill fellow humans. Our tools and technologies have a double-purpose use for the good and the bad. We have built living rooms, prison rooms and prayer rooms, torture chambers and court chambers, concert halls, academic halls and disco halls. Not being inflexibly eusocial such as ants and bees, we built also orientational tools in religions, morals, laws, and philosophies across cultures, similar to our producing agricultures, cities and technologies for good and healthy living. Socrates once argued against Euthyphron that our ethics and eusocial rules were not given by the Gods, but loved by the Gods and by good people because they are profitable, good and successful28. Cultural, religious and political human history demonstrates that social coherence, communities have been based on quite different orientational visions and religious beliefs. But those same visions also had caused once in while the most inhuman actions from the burning of the inhabitants of Jericho to the gas-chambers of the Nazis, and in all other persecutions and tortures of fellow humans who were considered not to be fitting into the communal bios for reasons of religion, color of skin, sex, different opinion.
We humans have other shortcomings, we cannot fly like the birds and cannot swim like the fish, but we have compensated these ‗shortcomings‘ by developing airplanes and ships. But we have transformed this earth more than any other species by building houses, farms, castles, skyscrapers and cities, our own huge networks of electricity, traffic, production and science, of communication and cooperation in geospace and cyberspace; most recently we have extended our experiences and interactions in cyberspace from religious contents towards support of internet-based networks of people, things and everything into revolutionary new interactions and integration of geospace-cyberspace.
26 Sass HM 2016 Cultures in Bioethics, Zuerich: Lit, p. 41-56.
27 ; see also Strittmatter K 2018 Die Neuerfindung der Diktatur. Muenchen: Piper
28 Platon: Euthyphron 9b
14
The Bioethical Imperative ‗Respect every living being as an end in itself and treat it, if possible, as such‘29, first was formulated and presented by Fritz Jahr in 1926 as an alternative and an extension to Immanuel Kant‘s Categorical Imperative of 1787 ‗Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end‘30. Both Imperatives can both be understood in their extremes either as clever egoism or as an altruistic compassion; but in reality, they express a deep insight into and respect for basic interdependencies of bios which are healthy and positive not only for me but for all sides involved. The biblical book of Genesis bases the existence of the creation in a divine act ‗in the beginning GOD created the Heavens and the Earth‘; an old Chinese saying holds ‗Heaven and Man are an integral One;
as a result, they are in constant pursuit of harmony between humanity and nature‘.31 Jahr‘s article of 1926 had the subtitle ‗Old Knowledge in new Clothing‘; the word ‗bioethics‘ coined by him was just a new word for traditional wisdom in all cultures and religions. Van Rensselar Potter, an oncologist at Madison, Wisconsin, used the term ‗bioethics‘ in most pressing and urgent wording: ‗mankind is in urgent need of new wisdom that will provide the knowledge of how to use knowledge for man‘s survival, … science of survival must be more than science alone, and I therefor propose the term ‗bioethics‘ in order to emphasize … the new wisdom that is desperately needed: biological knowledge, human values,… it is the foundation on which we build ecology, which is the relation among plants, animals, man, and the physical environment‘32.
The Bioethical Imperative formulated by Fritz Jahr in 1926 was a new word, but the concept and the challenge to the health and happiness of us humans, individually and collectively, and to our biotopes and globe, has been there for millennia. The prophet Micah and Jesus defined the bioethics requirement in most simple terms ‗love your neighbor as you love yourself‘33. The Vedic ‗tat tvam asi‘ – this is also you: the rat, the plant, the biotope, the city community, the suffering fellow human, the cut and dying rose in a vase – is shorter and more inclusive, but surely would be supported by Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Lao Zi and Confucius. The lack of firm and inflexible genetic heritage has turned out to not be a negative but a positive because it gave rise to a previously unknown richness in human social and cultural bios. Jewish rabbi and enlightened philosopher Moses Mendelsohn embraces and support this diversity: ‗Brethren, if you want true peacefulness in God, let us not lie about consensus when plurality seems to have been the plan and goal of providence. No one among us reasons and feels precisely the same way as the fellow-human does. Why do we hide from each other in masquerades in the most important issues of our lives, as God not without reason has given each of us his/her own image and face?‘34.
THE MANY FACES AND COLORS OF THE BIOETHICS IMPERATIVE.
Jahr‘s reasoning centers around the Bioethics Imperative. He reviews the impact of science and technology on human ethics and it may guide the systematic study of human conduct in the areas of the life sciences and of personal, professional and public moral commitment and conduct towards all other forms of life. As an educator he examines new knowledge and related conduct and commitment in the light of traditional moral values and principles. Thus, he develops the vision of Bioethics as a discipline, a principle, and a virtue
29 Jahr F 1926 (2013) Life Sciences and the Teaching of Ethics, in: Jahr F, Essays in Bioethics, ed.
Miller IM, Sass HM, Zuerich: Lit, 20f; this edition will be quoted as ‗FJ‘
30 Kant I 1785 (1993) Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, p. 36 [4:429]
31 Genesis 1:1; the Chinese slogan quoted by Pan Yue (Vice Minister for Environmental Protection, PRC), in: China Daily 07-27-06
32 Potter VR 1970 Bioethics: the Science of Survival, in: Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 14:127-153.
33 Matth22:39, also Leviticus 19:18; cf. 1 John 4:20: ‗If anyone says, "I love God," but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
34 Mendelsohn M 1819 Jerusalem oder ueber religiose Macht und Judentum. Ofen: Burian 201
15
in close discussion with Kant, extending and modifying the formal Categorical Imperative towards a more encompassing and accommodating content-based Bioethical Imperative, which has to take the struggle for life as a central issue of life into account; integrated and interacting struggle for life is an essential expression in all bios.
(1) A new Academic Discipline: The Bioethical Imperative is a necessary result of moral reasoning in the Humanities, based on empirical physiology and psychology of humans, plants, and animals. As such it needs to develop, to educate and to steward personal and collective cultural and moral attitudes, it calls for new respect and responsibilities towards all forms of life. The ‗Sanctity of Life‘ is the foundation of Jahr‘s 1927 Bioethical Imperative, while 1788 Kant named the ‗Sanctity of the Moral Law‘ as the foundation of the Categorical Imperative: ‗The moral law is sacred (inviolable). The person is not sacred, but humankind in his person must be recognized as sacred. Everything in the entire creation, if one wants and has power over it, can be used as a means only; only the human person and with it every intelligent being is an end in himself. He is the subject of the moral law, which is sacred, based on the autonomy of his will‘35. It is interesting to see, how precisely Jahr quotes new scientific publications in developing an ethical response to most recent scientific information.
(2) A new Basic Virtue Ethics: The Bioethical Imperative is based on historical and other evidence that ‗compassion is an empirical established phenomenon of the human soul‘.
There is ‗wrong love‘ and ‗true love‘, however. The old lady fattens her poodle while letting her servants suffer, displays false love and compassion similar to those, who practice corruption, favoritism, and unfair dealings with fellow humans36. Jahr argues that animal protection has a positive effect on ethical behavior towards humans and that even those, who do not accept his integrative bioethical reasoning, should accept animal protection as part of a culture of civilized and moral behavior among humans.
(3) A new Golden Rule: The Bioethical Imperative strengthens and complements moral recognition and duties towards fellow humans in the Kantian context and should be followed in respect of human culture and mutual moral obligations among humans. The Bioethical Imperative, based on compassion and love, cannot allow itself the Kantian luxury of just being formal. The Bioethical Imperative also is rigorous and categorical in its requirement to make deliberate pragmatic, situational, and prudent moral choices in respecting all forms of life. The golden rule is not to promote one single principle over the others, rather to balance principles depending on situations and parties involved.
(4) A new Personal Health Care rule and ethics: The Bioethical Imperative includes obligations towards one‘s own body and soul as a living being. For Jahr, who primarily was interested in the wider aspects of recognizing and teaching bioethical virtues and principles, moral duties towards one‘s own body and soul provide the bridge to biomedical ethics and public health ethics in the contemporary sense and towards interactive and interrelated goals and visions in personal and public health and hygiene, also in personal and public morality.
(5) A new Public Health Care rule: Educator and pastor Jahr voices a critical and quite conservative view towards public health issues associated with moral and cultural changes during the 20ties and 30ties of the last century. Going strong against the zeitgeist, he argues that fulfilling obligations towards oneself is also a duty towards others and towards public health, underlining the close interaction of personal care for health and public health care, also the dangers of addiction to alcohol and smoking. Jahr would not have supported the particularization of modern clinical practice into more and more specialized disciplines with less and less communication and cooperation with in the clinic and with the social biotopes of the hospital.
(6) A new Global Stewardship rule: Jahr broadens the 5th Commandment ‗thou shall not kill‘ into a universal rule and ethics of positively and proactively caring for the health and life of this globe as a part of a living cosmos: ‗This all shows the universal importance of the
35 Kant A156
36 FJ 36
16
5th Commandment, which needs to be employed in regard to all life.37 Rewriting the 5th Commandment results in the Bio-ethical Imperative: Respect every living being on principle as a goal in itself and treat it, if possible, as such!‘
(7) A new Corporate Ethics: The Bioethical Imperative has to recognize, to steward, and to cultivate the struggle for life among forms of life and natural and cultural living environments. Thus, social environments need similar attention as natural biotopes. Jahr uses the then popular term biozoemose 38 defined by R. H. France, for living environments. Thus, his bioethical model of interacting forms of life in a living environment – similar in natural or social or economic or political environments – would include social institutions such as those for health care. Jahr has not elaborated in detail on these types of life forms, which consists of individuals and groups, but which have their own interest in life, in success, recognition and survival. They will develop their own personal identity, corporate or institutional ethics and attitude as a good or bad corporate neighbor within their respective neighborhood.39 Thus, the universal Bioethical Imperative can also be detailed into specialized fields of ethics of care, such as for the internal metabolisms of hospital wards and similar institutions of service and production. Institutions in the various fields of health care interact, serve, compete and struggle with other institutional life and have individually their own internal rules and real individuals, who in various capacities belong into these institutions. For Jahr, bioethics and environmental ethics, corporate and institutional ethics, social and sexual ethics have to follow the same principles and virtues of responsibility and respect towards natural forms of life and forms of life created by humans.
(8) A new Terminological Ethics: There is another insight we can gain from Jahr‘s reasoning: the need to have a clear and precise terminology. He coined the term Bioethics in order to provide for clear and distinct reasoning and resolve in our dealings with living forms of reality as different to nonliving forms, and in stewarding modern science and technology and their applications into a morally responsible way. Is it professionally and logically not correct to use such a wide term as Bioethics for more precise and distinct issues such as Medical Ethics. Therefore, we should define more precisely what we mean in clinical ethics, ethics of medical research, ethics in the care for the demented, ethics in law, ethics in politics, - just to name a few specialized fields? Spinoza in his Ethics once said „illud omne esse verum quod valde clare et distincte percipio‘ (only those issues are true which we perceive clearly and distinctly) and Wittgenstein would add ‗whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent‘.
Unclear terminology leads to unclear investigations, goals, and actions, - not only in the science but also in the humanities. If ethics and every-day attitudes can learn anything from science, then the fact, that precision in definition is a priority and a precondition for clear conceptual and practical work, for communication and for cooperation and for further development.40
(9) A new Ethics of Differentiation: Jahr, when coining the term Bioethics followed the differentiation in the terminology of the most modern sciences, psychology and physiology in particular, which had developed a term bio-psychik - not in use anymore today - for analyzing forms of living nature from other forms of non-living nature. Unclear terminology leads to unclear reasoning and acting; it is an expression of unclear thinking itself. There are different terms available for different subjects, fields, and issues: bioethics, medical ethics, hospice ethics, health policy ethics, hospital ethics, biomedical ethics, medical
37 FJ, 77-84
38 Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe, ed. Eisler, 4. ed., 1927, vol. 1, 226.
39 For corporations as living and integrated bios and biotopes, cf ass HM 2016 Cultures in Bioethics, pp.209-220
40 For the term ‗bioethics‘ cf Sass HM 2014 Bioethik/Bioethics, in: Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 2014, 56:221-228
17
research ethics, physician‘s ethics, nursing ethics, health care ethics, nursing ethics, public health ethics, prevention ethics, gene ethics, consultation ethics, environmental ethics, animal ethics, global ethics - just to name a few. Also, ethics and cultures for handling machines and tools need to be developed along the development from axes, steam engines, autos, planes, cellphones. These inventions have become an essential part of our daily bios, such as cellphones, cars and televisions and they are just tools. Recently, the question has been raised whether we owe complex tools such artificial algorithms digesting enormous numbers of big data and developing and implementing on their own strategies for influencing and changing networks and biotopes. Jiwon Shim has raised the question whether, different to steam engines and cars, these artificially intelligent robots should be recognized and dealt with as living bios and not as machines.41 Will we have to develop strategies to defend human individuals and biotopes against Artificial Intelligence as we have developed strategies against wild animals and bad peoples?
(10) A new Ethics of Interaction: For Jahr, animal ethics and social ethics are different fields, but they interact and integrate, bringing different shapes and shades of the Bioethical Imperative together and describing the multitude of ethical obligations, some reciprocal among humans, some more or less paternalistic / maternalistic in compassionately and professionally caring for the weak, frail, and incompetent, some in stewarding plants and animals as co-creatures, others in mitigating or creating natural and social environments as human habitats. Those moral obligations and opportunities will and must overlap and interact in different ethical, philosophical and cultural models of personal, professional or institutional ethics, - medical ethics including prevention, treatment, care, research, - bioethics covering respect for and duties to all forms of life, environmental ethics accepting responsibility for natural and man-manipulated environment and their sustained survival and health. Nothing else is needed for the expertise and ethos of environmental ethics, land ethics, and he ethics of global responsibility in personal and in corporate and institutional ethics than a universal prudent and reasonable application of the Bioethical Imperative.
WHO PROTECTS AND CULTIVATES BIOS AND BIOTOPES?
Natural and cultivated biotopes, human technologies, religions and cultures have changed and will change, as everything has changed for billions and millions of years, sometimes more rapidly, sometimes in more protective modes, sometimes in successful ways, sometimes with destructive results. ‗Panta rei‘, i.e. everything changes: ‗You never walk through the same river‘ said one of the first Greek philosophers. Also, the more complex an individual bios or biotope is, the more stable and adaptable it seems to be.42 There was – based on biological gifts of the 8 C‘s, in particular our capacities to contemplate and calculate - wisdom in all cultures of how to protect ourselves and our biotopes. Jahr‘s 3-step interpretation of the 5th Commandment is such an advice. Tang Dynasty physician Sun Simiao 1400 years ago differentiated between mediocre, average and superior doctors: ‗a superior doctor takes care of the state, an average doctor takes care of the person, an inferior doctor takes care of the disease‘. This comes close to Galen, personal doctor of Roman Emperors 2000 years ago, who defined the ‗res non-naturales‘ as cultivated attitudes for well-balanced harmonious and happy lifestyles in ‗light and air, eating and drinking, work
41 Shim J 2017 Practical Methodology for Bio-ethical Imperative of Fritz Jahr, in: 1926-2016 Fritz Jahr‘s Bioethics. A global Discourse. Zuerich: Lit, pp 163-175. - When steam engines or cars malfunction, something must be broken and additional safety features did not work; when AI
‗machines‘ do not what they are programmed for to do, then they may malfunction as well or they have ventured into new fields of decision making by destroying or modifying biotopes and networks, similar to attacking military armies in the past. AI logical and calculating powers are much higher than those of any human individual; already my small handheld calculator is much superior than my capacities.
Do we need to differentiate between logical, calculating, emotional, social intelligence and refuse to include logical and calculating bios in machines, animals, plants and humans in our bio-ethical responsibilities?
42 Sass HM 2016 Cultures in Bioethics; Reeves M, Levin S, Ueda D 2016 The Biology of Corporate Survival, in: Harvard Business Review (Jan/Febr) 49
18
and rest, sleep and wake, secretion and excretion, and the stimulation of the mind.43 The 4 principles of the Southern Kung Fu Dragon School call for ‗(1) train and condition the body, (2) be righteous and uphold your honor, (3) respect your parent and honor your teacher, (4) treat others with honesty and your friends with loyalty‘44, go into the same direction. - Today, the diagnosis of health and sustainability of political bodies unfortunately focusses on economic parameters such as GNP (Gross National Product) only; a much better diagnostic and therapeutic tool has been suggested and applied in his country since 1972 by Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the King of Bhutan: the GHP (Gross Happiness Product), measuring personal pride, social and cultural coherence, satisfaction, knowledge, spirituality, individual emotional and physical health, harmony with the environment and balanced use of personal time.45
2500 years ago, Lao Zi suggested a recipe for healthy and happy living of individual and integrated bios: ‗cultivate yourself and virtue will become true; cultivate the family and virtue will be complete; cultivate the village and virtue will grow; cultivate the country and virtue will be rich; cultivate the world and virtue will be wide‘46 May we redefine Lao Zi‘s recommendation for the 21. century by saying: ‗cultivate yourself and your life and virtue will be true; cultivate individual and corporate persons and virtue will be great; cultivate social and natural environments and virtue will be full; cultivate communication cooperation and life will grow; cultivate compassion and competence and life will be rich; cultivate the worlds of bios and biotopes and virtue will be wide‘. Buddha, Confucius, Lao Zi, Jesus and Mohamed, also Jahr and Potter, most likely would support such a cross-cultural Bioethical and Biopolitical Recipe for the 21the century, as a challenge to all of us. The oncologist Potter in Madison, Wisconsin, would have added: ‗This is urgent!‘
43 Quoted in Sass HM 2016 Cultures in Bioethics, 177f
44 Cf the internet, also Wilhelm R (1968) The I Ching or Book of Changes. London: Routledge.
45 Policy Innovations, in: http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/briefings/data/000098/; Bhutan GNH, 11th Five-Year-Plan 2012-2018 ‗Self-Reliance and Inclusive Green Socioeconomic Development. GNH Foundation, XIX and 467 pp; in 2015 8.4% of the population were deeply happy, 35% extensively happy, 47% narrowly happy, 8.8% unhappy; this was a 1.8% improvement over the figures of 2010; cf Devine J, Hinks T, Naveed A 2017 Happiness in Bangladesh: The Role of Religion and Connectedness, in: J of Happiness Studies, 1-21 [https://link.springer.com/article/
10.1007/s10902-017-9939-x/fulltext.html.- It has been estimated that in economic terms business loses 350 billion US$ every year due to unhappy workers; cf various wikipedia articles for more detailed information. - The actual 2013-2018 plan details goals and estimates of cost for the support of infrastructure, communication, internet, schools, local communities, trade, environment, renewable resources, vulnerable populations, and the elderly. The index now includes eight pillars with greater specificity as general contributors to happiness: ‗physical, mental and spiritual health; time-balance;
social and community vitality; cultural vitality; education; living standards; good governance;
ecological vitality‘. The United Nations in 2012 adopted this concept of happiness and defined happiness as a human right and a ‗fundamental human goal‘.
46 Dao te Ching 54
