Reviews for Ethics

The average rating for Ethics based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-11-30 00:00:00 Amelia Earnshaw "The knowledge of good and evil seems to be the aim of all ethical reflections," opens Bonhoeffer." The first task of Christian ethics is to invalidate this knowledge" (17). Written for the most part in jail as he was imprisoned by the National Socialists in Germany from 1943 until he was hanged in 1945, Bonhoeffer's work is surly incomplete, but nevertheless, stands as a staggering piece of ethical literature, and one that causes the reader to view all ethical systems heretofore, by taking a step back, and perchance force the reader to reevaluate them in this new light. Quoting Scripture with ease, making great use of the Greek text, and citing Kierkegaard and Nietzsche fluidly, Bonhoeffer's prose is remarkable, and to be sure, captivating. Why those who have reviewed this previously on Goodreads seemed to struggle with the content herein, or at least the diction, I know not: for I can thing of at least a dozen or so philosophers or theologians whose prose is so utterly confounded and far more muddled, that I have a hard time making sense of anything (c.f. Hegel or Heidegger). With that being said, Bonhoeffer's system is surely incomplete as aforesaid, but that doesn't prevent him from laying out a number of solid pieces of ethical reflection whereof I will discuss a few briefly. "Ethical discourse cannot be conducted in a vacuum, in the abstract, but only in the concrete. Ethical discourse, therefore, is not a system of propositions which are correct in themselves, a system which is available for anyone to apply at any time and in any place, but it is inseparably linked with particular persons, times, and places. This limitation does not mean that the ethical loses any of its significance, but it is precisely from this that it derives its warrant, its weight; whereas whenever it is not restricted it is enfeebled to the point of impotence" (271). 'Shots fired! Shots fired!' Kant is running for cover like a scared ninny!' Yes, Bonhoeffer's critique can be seen as one big jab at deontological ethical systems, or any system that places good as "the good" and evil as "the evil;" or that is to say, anyone that philosophizes about ethics in purely an abstract form thereby removing the purpose into the abstract and not taking into the account the concrete, the real, the historical. What is this concrete, real, and historical? None other than Jesus Christ Himself, the God-man who become flesh as a real man in history. Yes, Bonhoeffer's approach is so thoroughly christological, that if he seeks to ground his ethical system, he doesn't do so in something, but in someone, viz., Jesus Christ. "In Jesus Christ the reality of God entered into the reality of this world...Henceforward one can speak neither of God nor of the world without speaking of Jesus Christ. All concepts of reality which do not take account of Him are abstractions" (194). For Bonhoeffer, the good is simply by doing the will of God, by being united to Him by faith and following him in the concrete, the real life situations given the manifold encounters and people that we deal with every day. "Faith in this Jesus Christ is the sole foundation-head of all good" (213). While I believe that Bonhoeffer knew that this posed some problems, which he discusses a little bit, (i.e. how does one regulate this will, who hears God in this way, etc.), he nevertheless left numerous portions, much to our chagrin, unfinished as he was hanged before completion of his "Ethics." Bonhoeffer therefore grounds the task of Christian ethics to transcend good and evil, which he sees as our knowledge of the aforesaid coming to us only because of the fall. When we are united to Christ, this knowledge of the two separate spheres, namely the secular and the spiritual, the profane and the sacred, simply dissolves as a false dichotomy. Yes, Jesus was a real man, and he came for real men. Just as Jesus parried all attacks and straw men of false dichotomies of seemingly good and evil given to him by the Sadducees and Pharisees by offering what appears to the natural man not an answer at all, but something wholly other, so to does the man unified in Christ seek to walk in the will of God and offer wisdom from heaven, not from earth. Knowledge that isn't rooted in either good or evil, but simply in Christ, the real God-man who came for the entire world. Bonhoeffer, shows how, then, we should not split these two spheres of the sacred and the profane, but allow them to unite as they are under the Headship of one Man, Jesus Christ. Bonhoeffer doesn't thereby give a pass to say that evil is good and good is evil, he is far too dialectical for that, he reasons that each functions in its own right, but that their sphere is limited, and to be sure, overlap because they are under one man, a part of one earth, the same earth that Jesus came to save. "Jesus is not concerned with the proclamation and realization of new ethical ideals; He is not concerned [even] with Himself being good (Matt 19:17); He is concerned solely with love for the real man, and for that reason He is able to enter into fellowship of the guilt of men and to take the burden of their guilt upon Himself" (240). While Bonhoeffer chides duty-based systems, he doesn't thereby eliminate the subjects duty, but simply re-asserts that one cannot remove duty from history, from the concrete. Bonhoeffer speaks of the four spheres that God has given to man that are united in Christ, namely, the Church, the State, Culture, and the Family. He discusses how these interconnect, and yet all serve different functions. While men have duties, these are not deontological duties, but ones of deputyship, which ultimately must be made responsibly given the truth of the four aforementioned spheres, and also the truth of Christ. So, do we have an obligated to tell the truth when a madman breaks in wishing to kill my hiding friend and asks if my friend is hiding in the house? Bonhoeffer answers in the negative, and says that in this concrete historical context, that a lie is most probably more truthful than arbitrarily telling the truth since such an action would not be a responsible action. "Responsibility is fundamentally a matter of deputyship [and] is demonstrated most clearly in those circumstances in which a man is directly obliged to act in the place of other men" (224). So, what is the good? I am inclined at least to agree with Bonhoeffer that if we must philosophize about 'good,' we must do so with our eyes fixed on Christ, and Christ alone. Indeed we do not live abstractly, but live existentially in the concrete. While by no means completed, I think Bonhoeffer was on to something, and that, just maybe, this field of discipline we call 'ethics' is perhaps not quite as black and white as we would like to think. Brent

Review # 2 was written on 2011-08-12 00:00:00 Ross Pinky "Ethics" was a difficult book to read and desperately cried out for some editing. In Bonhoeffer's defense, the book was published posthumously, so he never got the opportunity to refine it or interact with an editor. Modern publishers are no doubt hesitant to cut any material, though other publications present the material in different orders. Written while Bonhoeffer was actively involved in the resistance and a plot to assassinate Hitler, my expectation was that he would biblically and philosophically work through the moral dilemma of a Christian pastor engaged in such activities. And he did do this – in far more words than were necessary. Some take-aways, especially for those who have taken ethics from me: 1) He had little use for duty-based ethics or ethical mandates derived from universal principles. Ethics is about living real life before God in the context of relationships. Therefore ethics is always contextual and theological. 2) He landed in between a graded absolutism and ideal absolutism on moral dilemmas. His argument for ideal absolutism is that Jesus became sin for us so incurring guilt for the good of another is an entirely Christian thing to do. Ultimately, because of what I wrote in #1, his position on moral dilemmas would have to be some form of graded absolutism, where violating the law of God is not sin if it is done for the good of another. 3) His treatment of truth telling and whether it is ever right to lie was fascinating but incomplete. He never got the chance to finish it. Though I earlier complained about the length, I would have loved to have read more on this. He had some interesting insights and examples on how truth is contextual, depending on the nature of the relationship between the moral agents. 4) Bonhoeffer’s neo-orthodoxy is more evident in this book than in “Cost of Disicpleship” or “Life Together.”