Top Posters
Since Sunday
35
18
s
13
12
11
N
6
o
6
6
g
5
h
5
l
5
i
5
A free membership is required to access uploaded content. Login or Register.

In Search of the Good chap 1 4.doc

Uploaded: A year ago
Contributor: bio_man
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Type: Lecture Notes
Rating: N/A
Helpful
Unhelpful
Filename:   In_Search_of_the_Good_chap_1_4.doc.doc (578 kB)
Page Count: 182
Credit Cost: 2
Views: 335
Last Download: N/A
Transcript
OIn Search of the Good A Catholic Understanding of Moral Living Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops Preliminary pages + chapters 1 to 4 Printed pages: 1 to 84 Transcriber’s Notes: To make the reading of this book easier, the footnotes are numbered as they are in the print copy and they are placed in the text in parentheses. All spelling and typing errors appearing in the print copy are reproduced. Chronology of the Bible The Ancestors of the Israelites c.1900; Abraham comes to Palestine; Isaac is born to Abraham; Jacob is born to Isaac; Jacob has 12 sons who become ancestors of the tribes of Israel; the most prominent of these sons is Joseph, who becomes adviser to the King of Egypt The Israelites in Egypt c. 1700 - c. 1250; The descendants of Jacob are enslaved in Egypt c.1250; Moses leads the Israelites out of Egypt c. 1250 - c. 1210; The Israelites wander in the wilderness; during this time Moses receives the Law on Mount Sinai The Conquest and Settlement of Canaan c.1210; Joshua leads the first stage of the invasion of Canaan; Israel remains a loose confederation of tribes; the leaders are heroic figures known as Judges The United Israelite Kingdom c. 1030 - c. 1010; Reign of Saul c. 1010 - c. 970; Reign of David c. 970 - c. 931; Reign of Solomon The Two Israelite Kingdoms Judah (southern kingdom) Kings 931-913; Rehoboam; 913-911; Abijam; 911-870; Asa; 870-848; Jehoshaphat; 848-841; Jehoram; 841; Ahaziah; 841-835; Queen Athaliah; 835-796; Joash; 796-781; Amaziah; 781-740; Uzziah; 740-736; Jotham; 736-716; Ahaz; 716-687; Hezekiah Israel (northern kingdom) Kings 931-910; Jeroboam; 910-909; Nadab; 909-886; Baasha; 886-885; Elah; 885 (7 days); Zimri; 885-874; Omri; 874-853; Ahab; 853-852; Ahaziah; 852-841; Joram; 841-814; Jehu; 814-798; Jehoahaz; 798-783; Jehoash; 783-743; Jeroboam II; 743 (1 month); Shallum; 743-738; Menahem; 738-737; Pekahiah; 737-732; Pekah; 732-723; Hoshea; 722 Fall of Samaria Prophets Elijah; Elisha; Amos; Hosea; Isaiah; Micah Historical Israel wanders into and out of covenant promises; fortunes of kingdom fade; Egypt invades Palestine (732); Assyrians invade Israel (c. 725); Israelites become vassals of Assyria; Nebuchadnezzar defeats Egyptians in northwestern Mesopotamia; Egyptians retreat through Palestine; Rome founded (735) Scripture prophets speak out against Israel's infidelity; collections of prophetic sayings started; Deuteronomy is begun; emphasis on Holiness Law; synthesis of oral traditions and writings Chronology of the Bible The Last Years of the Kingdom of Judah Kings 687-642; Manasseh; 642-640; Amon; 640-609; Josiah; 609 (3 months); Joahaz; 609-598; Jehoikim; 598 (3 months); Jehoiachim; 598-587; Zedekiah; 587 or 586; Fall of Jerusalem Prophets Zephaniah; Nahum; Jeremiah; Habakkuk?; Ezekiel Historical many Israelites deported to Babylon; Babylon captivity (587); apparent end of Israel as a nation; Jeremiah predicts resurrection of "new" Israel; Cyrus unites kingdoms of East into Persian Empire; captures Babylon; Greeks begin move into Northern territory; Rome begins domination of Italian peninsula; Persian-Greek wars Scripture various traditions synthesized; prophetic writings added to sacred literature; many psalms added to list; Lamentations added; Deuteronomy expanded and edited; Job, Jonah and Ruth added The Exile and the Restoration 587; The Jews are taken into exile in Babylon alter the fall of Jerusalem; 539; Persian rule begins; 538; Edict of Cyrus allows Jews to return; 520; Foundations of the new Temple laid; 445-443; Restoration of the walls of Jerusalem Prophets Haggai/Zechariah; Obadiah; Malachi/Joel? The Time Between the Testaments 333; Alexander the Great establishes Greek rule in Palestine; 323-198; Palestine is ruled by the Ptolemies (descendants of one of Alexander's generals) who had been given the position of ruler over Egypt; 198-166; Palestine is ruled by the Selucids (descendants of one of Alexander's generals) who had acquired the rule of Syria; 166-63; Jewish revolt under Judas Maccabeus re-establishes Jewish independence; Palestine is ruled by Judas' family and descendants - the Hasmoneans; 63; The Roman general Pompey takes Jerusalem; Palestine is ruled by puppet kings appointed by Rome; 37-4; Roman puppet king, Herod the Great, rules Palestine Historical Alexander conquers Persia; after Alexander's death, Greek Empire divided into three parts: Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia; Greek influence in Middle East; Rome controls Palestine; Temple dominates Jewish religious life; Rome controls the "world"; Greek and Roman cultures dominate eastern Mediterranean lands Scripture Psalms in final form; collections of prophetic writings edited; Jewish Scriptures translated into Greek; later books added; Judith and Wisdom complete Hebrew Scriptures; Septuagint translation becomes standard for Jews in Egypt Common Era Begins Birth of Jesus; Ministry of John the Baptist; Baptism of Jesus; Beginning of the public ministry of Jesus; c. AD 30; Death and resurrection of Jesus; c. AD 35; Conversion of Paul (Saul of Tarsus); c. AD 41 - 65 . Ministry of Paul; c. AD 65; Final imprisonment of Paul; c. AD 70 - 100 . The four Gospels are written Chronology of the New Testament Important Events during New Testament Times Christian Writings 1&2 Thessalonians (50-52); Galatians (54-55); 1&2 Corinthians (54-56); Romans (56-57); Philippians (58-60); Colossians (58-60); Philemon (58-60) Gospel of Mark (70); James (75-100); Ephesians (75-100) Gospel of Matthew (85-100); Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles (85-100); 1 Peter (90-95); Hebrews (90-95); Revelation (90-95); Gospel of John (90-110); Letters of John (90-110); Pastoral Epistles (100-130) Jude (110-130); 2 Peter (130-150) Events in the Early Church Birth of Jesus (6-4BC?) Preaching of John the Baptist (27-29); Ministry of Jesus (29-33); Crucifixion (30-33); Conversion of Paul (33-35); Peter Imprisoned (41-44); Execution of James son of Zebedee (44); Paul in Galatia (47-49); Paul in Corinth (50-51); Paul in Ephesus (52-54); Paul arrested in Jerusalem (56); Paul in Rome (60); Death of James (called “brother of Jesus”) (62); Paul’s Martyrdom (65?); Flight of Christians to Pella (66-67) Martyrdom of Ignatius (117?) Events in Jewish History Conquest and Rule of Alexander the Great (336-323BC); Maccabean Revolt (167BC); Dead Sea Community at Qumran (105BC-66AD); Pompey captures Jerusalem (Roman Rule Begins) (63BC) High Priest Caiaphas (18-36) Theudas’ Revolt (40?); Jew banished from Rome by Claudius (41-49) War with Rome (66-73); Jerusalem and Temple destroyed (70) Council of Jamnia (90?) Note: This chronology is only approximate, since the accuracy of many dates is uncertain under present scholarship. For clarity and brevity some details are omitted. Chronology of the New Testament Rulers during New Testament Times Roman Emperors Before Christ (BC): Augustus (27 BC - AD 14) Anno domini (AD): Tiberius (14-37); Caligula (37-41); Claudius (41-54); Nero (54-68); Galba (68-69); Otho (69); Vitellius (69); Vespasian (69-79); Titus (79-81); Domitian (81-96); Nerva (96); Trajan (98-117); Hadrian (117-138) Herodian Rulers Before Christ (BC): Herod the Great (37-4 BC) Anno domini (AD): Kingdom Divided (4 BC) Itrurea/Trachonitus: Philip the Tetrarch (4 BC-AD 34); Agrippa I (37-44); Agrippa II (50-100) Galilee/Perea: Herod Antipas (4 BC-AD 39); Agrippa I (41-44); Agrippa II (56 or 61-100) Judea/Samaria: Archelaus (4 BC-AD 6); Roman Governors; Roman Governors Roman Governors of Judea Before Christ (BC): Anno domini (AD): Coponius (6-9); Marcus Ambivius (9-12); Annius Rufus (12-15); Valerius Gratus (15-26); Pontius Pilate (26-36); Maecellus (36-37); Marullus (37-41); Cuspius Fadus (44-46); Tiberius Alexander (46-48); Cumanus (48-52); Felix (52-58); Festus (58-62); Albinus (62-64); Gessius Florus (64-68) In Search of the Good A Catholic Understanding of Moral Living Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops In Search of the Good A Catholic Understanding of Moral Living Part A: Ethical foundations Unit I: Mapping the ethical experience; 5 Chapter 1; Why be ethical? 7 Chapter 2; You are what you do; 23 Chapter 3; Conscience: The self in search of the good; 41 Unit II: Guided by the light of Revelation; 61 Chapter 4; The naming of God and ethics; 63 Chapter 5; "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also"; 85 Chapter 6; Church: the sacrament of God’s grace; 107 The sextant depicted on the cover is an instrument used by sailors to aid their navigation. By sighting on the horizon and the Sun or North Star at a given time of day or night, sailors can establish their location in terms of latitude. By using a sextant together with charts, compass, and timepiece, sailors can get their bearings even in the middle of the sea. The sextant symbolizes what this course is about. Life is like being out at sea: we live in times that may seem more fluid than solid, where the direction we need to travel does not always seem obvious, where storms may arise, where we must learn to navigate or be lost to the mercy of the winds and currents in which we are caught. There are solid points of reference in the moral life, just like the Sun and stars and horizon for the sailor. By learning to recognize these solid points of reference, and developing our skills in order to be able to navigate through life using these reference points, we will succeed in finding direction. In Search of the Good: A Catholic Understanding of Moral Living will help guide you as you undertake your search for the good in life. (photo: omitted) Part B: Searching for the good Unit II: Discovering the good life; 125 Chapter 7; The good life: Our search for happiness; 127 Chapter 8; Norms for moral living; 147 Chapter 9; Living in praise and thanksgiving; 163 Unit IV: Gifted with freedom; 185 Chapter 10; Free to be fully alive; 187 Chapter 11; Freedom in a political and cultural context; 209 Chapter 12; The freedom of the children of God; 227 Unit V: Proclaiming justice and mercy; 243 Chapter 13; "I the LORD love justice" (Isaiah 61.8); 245 Chapter 14; Let earth and sea and sky proclaim your glory; 265 Chapter 15; "If I sin, what do I do to you?" (Job 7.20); 283 Unit VI: Building a civilization of love; 305 Chapter 16; Marriage matters; 307 Chapter 17; The family; 331 Chapter 18; "Render unto Caesar..." The search for the good and politics; 347 End Notes; 365 Ackowledgements; 375 Index; 377 Conférence des Évêques Catholiques du Canada Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (logo: omitted) (photo: omitted) Dear Student, This book is based on a distinction. We tend naturally to connect the idea of being good with the idea of doing the right thing. And yet, good people sometimes do the wrong thing and bad people sometimes do the right thing. The goodness that we find in people appears to be flawed; so is the goodness I find in myself. And so, this text distinguishes between the goodness of human beings and the rightness or wrongness of their actions. This book is based on our pursuit of happiness. When you really think about it, trying to make myself happy doesn't work. Yet when I do the right thing for others, I experience happiness. It seems that happiness is a by-product of doing a good thing, the right thing. Great thinkers, philosophers and scholars provide this textbook with a study of the interaction between pursuing the good and finding happiness. This book is based on the gift of faith. The teachings of Christ and his Church help us to peer honestly into the depths of our hearts and recognize the goodness of our being. The power of the Holy Spirit, dwelling within us, offers forgiveness to heal our broken heart and courage to act justly in this world. The gift of faith enlightens our understanding about goodness, about the sin that afflicts our humanity and about our quest for happiness. Perhaps St. Ambrose summarizes the approach of this textbook best: Hold fast to God, the one true good Where a man's heart is, there is his treasure also. God is not accustomed to refusing a good gift to those who ask for one. Since he is good,... let us hold fast to him with all our soul, our heart, our strength, and so enjoy his light and see his glory and possess the grace of supernatural joy. Let us reach out with our heart to possess that good, let us exist in it and live in it, let us hold fast to it, that good which is beyond all we can know or see and is marked by perpetual peace and tranquillity, a peace which is beyond all we can know or understand. This is the good that permeates creation. In it we all live, on it we all depend. It has nothing above it; it is divine. No one is good but God alone... It is through God’s goodness that all that is truly good is given us... (* The Liturgy of the Hours, Vol. II. (NY: Catholic Book Co., 1973) p. 203) With the authors of this textbook I pray and hope that this program of studies will help you steer a course through life that will lead you to your treasure. Sincerely yours, Most Rev. Richard Grecco Auxiliary Bishop of Toronto Part A: Ethical foundations Unit I: Mapping the ethical experience Infinite: boundless, endless. In mathematics, the infinite refers to something that cannot be counted. It is greater than any assignable quantity. In philosophy and theology, the good is infinite. It cannot be confined or measured by a definable quantity. Ethics aims at this infinite good. Introduction Ethics is for lovers. It is for people who know how to love deeply, passionately and energetically. Ethics is for people who have a passion for the good and the beautiful. And so we begin to tell our story of ethics by going to its very centre - love. St. Augustine, in his book Confessions, asks, "What do I love when I love God?" It is an interesting question, which he later repeats in the form of a prayer, "What do I love when I love You, my God?" With this question, St. Augustine admits that he does not know the answer. What is it that I love when I love God? As we explore ethics, we join St. Augustine in his quest. Why is love of God a good starting point for ethics? Ethics is not first of all about duties and obligations, or about rules of behaviour, or about laws. The driving force of ethics is the good. We are not talking about the small goods of life, such as a car, a house, a family, or wealth. Ethics is about the big good: the good which St. Paul described as "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him" (I Corinthians 2.9). It is the impossible good that Mary encountered when the angel came to her with God's announcement that she was to bear a child while she had no husband (Luke 1.34). Ethics searches for the infinite, the impossible, first of all. Then it returns to our day-to-day actions, to the obligations and responsibilities that we have for one another. In this program we will start by exploring this search for the infinite good. Then we will look at how we translate this search into our actions. The first we call ethics. The second - translating the search for the good into the way we conduct our lives - we call morality. We can see morality at work in our rules or guidelines of behaviour and good actions. Accordingly, for example, the Ten Commandments - the ten words given to Moses - touch on morality. They identify the good by looking at its flip side: You shall not steal; you shall not murder. Or they show how the good is attained: You shall love the Lord your God. In the opening chapter, we will make the distinction between ethics and morality using examples from everyday life. In Search of the Good: A Catholic Understanding of Moral Living consists of two parts: an introductory section of two units and a second section of four units. The introductory units ask the question: What fundamental issues are at work in a Catholic approach to ethics? We approach the question from two angles. The first angle explores a philosophical understanding of the human person as ethical (Unit I). You will be invited to reflect on the rich ethical tradition that has emerged over the centuries from Aristotle (384-322 Be) to contemporary thinkers on such questions as "What is ethics?" "What makes human actions unique?" "What guides human actions in search of the good?" "What is conscience?" In Unit I we will use what tradition has called the "Book of Nature," that is, what human reason can learn from the natural world. Human intelligence and philosophical reflection have helped us to understand this desire within us for the good. The second angle (Unit II) explores what our Judeo-Christian tradition brings to ethics and the consideration of the good. Here we will turn to sacred Scripture, which is foundational for our understanding of ourselves as ethical beings. In the second part of In Search of the Good, Revelation and reason will be placed in dialogue with each other. We will consider the good that people search for in the various domains of their lives. Here we will enter into the treasury of reflection that has enlightened human culture over the centuries. We will sample reflections on the good of freedom, of justice, of love, of community, and of forgiveness. We will consider how these goods impact on our lives individually. We will ask "How might I think about these goods when I have to choose between more than one good?" "What about when I am confronted with evil, the opposite of the good?" Each chapter also offers moments for reflection. These are opportunities to develop a sense of gratitude for the gift of the ethical and moral thrust in ourselves. It is this gift that allows our world to be a home for humanity; a place where it is good to be; a world for lovers. Chapter 1 Why be ethical? The happy [person] lives well and does well; for we have practically defined happiness as a sort of good life and good action. Aristotle Focus your learning Cognitive; What makes your experiences ethical or moral? Practical; How can the ethical theories of Aristotle, Kant and Levinas help you to understand the ethical/moral dimensions of the decisions that you are called upon to make every day of your life? Affective; What do you consider to be "the good life"? Key terms in this chapter autonomy; beautiful; deontological ethics; desire; duty; ethics; good; morality; obligation; passion; response; responsibility; Revelation; teleological ethics Key thinkers Aristotle; Immanuel Kant; Emmanuel Levinas The ethical experience: Four ways of locating the ethical in you "Be home by midnight. And please, drive carefully!" How often have your parents said something like this to you? Perhaps you associate ethics and morals with this kind of prescriptive language. Ethics and morality become a series of do's and don'ts imposed on you by an outside authority. You may often feel that these obligations are an imposition on your personal freedom and responsibility. You may resent these rules and codes as an intrusion on your freedom. Accordingly, you may well think of ethics or morality as something that others put upon you and not as something that is yours. In the following four examples the ethical is clearly a part of what it means to be human. The scream - The experience of personal response Ken Melchin begins his book on Christian ethics Living With Other People with the following story: Take a moment to imagine that you are on vacation, stretched out on a vast expanse of magnificent white beach, with no one around for miles. You are finally getting that relief from the tension and anxiety of daily life that g you most certainly deserve. You can feel your muscles relaxing. You can feel the stress flowing out of your body. You can feel your mind detaching from everyday concerns, releasing the grip of concentrated attention. Yom mind begins to wander, to float blissfully, to be carried here, then there, from one pleasant image to another, on the breezes that blow in that familiar region of consciousness between waking and sleeping. Suddenly a scream break through your state of bliss. "Help!!!" Edvard Munch, The Scream, 1893 Copyright The Munch-Museum/The Munch-Ellingsen Group/SODART 2004 (image: omitted) Ethics or morality? Which is it? Do ethics and morality mean the same thing? Not quite. Ethics comes from the Greek to ethika (having to do with good character). Morality comes from the Latin moralitas (having to do with the customs, habits and manners shaping human life). Ethics is interested more in the good that humans tend towards, such as happiness and freedom. Morality is interested more in the ways that humans can attain this good, such as the rules, laws or commandments which we experience as a duty or obligation to follow. The text will constantly go back and forth between ethics and morality. Some chapters will focus more on ethics; others will focus more on morality. Ethics guides morality; it gives vision to our action. A concrete comparison might make this distinction clearer: Ethics is like understanding musical theory, knowing how to read music, and understanding technique. Morality is like actually playing music, hitting the right notes, correctly interpreting the musical phrase, performing. Another example: Ethics is like understanding the laws of physics that govern driving a car; for instance, knowing that it takes friction between the tires and the road to have good traction, and that in a snowstorm this friction is reduced. Morality is like good driving: slowing down in a snowstorm and allowing greater distance to stop the car, knowing and applying the rules of the road, driving defensively. You can play music without understanding musical theory, and you can operate a car without understanding the laws of physics. However, you would have difficulty in making good decisions in your musical performance or driving should challenges or dramatic changes arise that require your response. That’s why we need a basis for our decisions and actions. Ethics gives us this understanding of the fundamental principles underlying our activity. Does ethics take priority over morality? Ethics has a certain priority because the search for the good is so important in our lives. But to better understand our search for the good, we must look first at how, over the centuries, people have expressed the good in laws, norms for action, rules, regulations or commandments. Laws and commandments serve to protect some good - for example, ''Thou shalt not kill.” This commandment promotes and protects the good of life. Yet, there is an exception to this commandment, called self-defense. Ethics searches for the higher good on which the act of self-defense is based. Ethics also explains how there can be a higher good in particular circumstances and under certain conditions. In other words, norms and duties are not the final word. The good is. Rules or norms that do not contribute to the good need to be reformulated. See Paul Ricoeur, Oneself as Another, tr. by Kathleen Blamey (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 170. Your entire being suddenly shifts into gear! You are transformed! In a single movement your body and mind rise together into a state of action, of focused attention, of total concentration. It is as different from your previous state as a hurricane from a calm summer's day. Before, you were at rest. Now you are in motion! You are energized! You are dynamized by a concern, a desire, a commitment to action. Who screamed? Are they drowning? Where are they? How to help them? Find out! Get to them! Save them! Keep them alive! (1) How would you name this experience? The scream broke through your reverie, forcing you to awareness of your responsibility for another person. Objectively, the scream was a burst of sound. For you it was a sound that touched you more deeply than at the level of your intellect. It won't do to analyze the scream. The scream is an appeal, a call for help. It urges you not to think, but to act. It is a deeply felt, almost automatic, claim made upon you to do something. Without thinking about it, you feel an inner tension to respond. It is not a decision you make. It is an almost automatic response. This is what it means to experience an ethical response. Think about your response. It is a uniquely human experience. The beggar - The experience of the other A second common ethical experience comes to us from the French-Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas (1905-1995). For Levinas, it all star with the human face, especially the face of someone in need. Something happens to us when we are face to face with another person, whom he refers to as an "Other." All face-to-face encounters are ethical because they remind us of our responsibility for the Other. Later in this chapter you will learn more about Levinas's ethical theory, but first consider this simple example. Imagine that you are walking downtown in a typical Canadian city. You meet someone who asks you for some spare change. You may have noticed the person as you came up the street. You may already have begun the debate within yourself as to what you will do. When confronted with this person, you probably go through a number of emotions. "Oh, the poor guy!" "Get a job." "I have better things to spend my money on." "She will probably spend it on alcohol or drugs." "The city should take care of these people." "Oh no!" "Maybe l should cross to the other side." "Why me?" "Please, not today." Even if you refuse to give some spare change, you are not finished with the request. As you walk down the street, the other person, the needy one, is still with you. He or she is inside you while you are busy defending your decision not to give - or, your decision to give. The other person has evoked a response from you. In Levinas's language, the Other's face has taken you hostage and made you responsible. This is an ethical experience. The Other's face is not something you can just look at neutrally. It has another sort of impact: the face is ethical. "I have to…” - The experience of obligation For the third ethical experience, let us go back to the parent who tells you, "Be home by midnight! And please, drive carefully!" When your parents ask you to be cautious, it affects you in a way that is connected with the experience of duty, or obligation. Yom ethical sense is turned on when someone orders you to do something. Take the example of your parents giving you a curfew and telling you to drive carefully. As the time gets closer to midnight, you start thinking about taking your leave. As time passes, you grow increasingly aware of the time and of your need to get going. If you choose to ignore these warning signals and stay anyway, your unrest doesn't go away. You will continue debating with yourself what you will tell your parents. On reaching home after midnight, you may try to sneak to your bedroom without making any noise for fear your parents will hear you and confront you. This experience of feeling obliged to obey a rule or a law has everything to do with your ethical side. Something in you obliges you to follow the law, or to do what is considered the right thing to do. Someone, whom you consider to have authority over you, can convince you to follow his or her reason or wishes. You cannot remain neutral toward such a person: the order or wish invades your consciousness and demands a response. Yom response has everything to do with ethics. Here again you show yourself to be an ethical being. The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) worked out an ethical theory for this experience of duty, or obligation. We will have more to say about Kant’s ideas later in the chapter. (photo: omitted) This is intolerable! This isn't fair! - The experience of contrast A fourth ethical experience occurs when you feel outraged by something blatantly unjust or unfair happening to yourself or to others. At the end of the Second World War, the Allied troops brought to light the first images of the heaps of corpses and the emaciated remnants of the Jewish people in the death camps. In 1995, United Nations Peacekeepers reported their helplessness as 7,000 men and boys were butchered in Srebrenice by the Serbian army. Other peacekeepers have wept as they gave witness about the genocide in Rwanda. In each case, the world reacted with anger and revulsion. Before massive evil the human heart recoils and is filled with incomprehension. "Never again," Pope Paul VI pleaded at the United Nations in 1971, "War, never again!" When you feel overwhelmed by the unjust suffering of others, by the plight of workers who are let go while the bosses award themselves big bonuses, by battered women and abused children, the indignation you feel is an experience of contrast with what ought to be. "This is not right!" "This must be stopped." "This is intolerable!" "This isn't fair!" You have a healthy built-in capacity for seeing what the world ought to look like and how situations ought to be. When confronted with senseless violence and disregard of others, you quite naturally recoil from this destruction. This is again an ethical experience. One could call this an experience of contrast. You are shocked because the terrible and terrifying event contrasts so strongly with what you expect from your fellow humans. The intolerable ought not to be! A mass grave in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during the Second World War (photo: omitted) Guiding questions 1. How would you describe your personal experience from the perspective of each of the scenarios? 2. What reasons or motives might you have that would cause you to respond in one way or another? 3. What makes you respond in these situations? Why? 4. Under what circumstances might you respond differently? 5. What makes these responses ethical? Defining ethics Consider these four types of ethical experiences: personal response (the scream), responsibility for the Other (the beggar), duty (the curfew), and contrast (the intolerable). It is one thing to experience these things, but it is quite another to understand what these experiences mean. Early philosophers noted such experiences and reflected on them. From these philosophers we have inherited different theories that seek to explain ethical experiences and to translate them into a practical wisdom of living. In other words, the ethical experiences do not lead directly to an ethical theory. What one person considers a duty or intolerable, cannot be translated into an ethical position that applies to everyone at all times. Moral philosophers, or ethicists, sort out what, according to their understanding, is an ethical approach to such experiences. They delve into the complexity of human actions and propose what is the human thing to do. From these philosophers we have received several definitions of ethics. At a general level, ethics is about the "goodness" of human life. Ethics seeks answers to questions like: "How and when does human life reflect what is good?" and "How do we aim at the good life?" In asking these questions, we quickly recognize that saying "the good life is the aim of ethics" raises as many questions as it answers. Who determines what is "good"? What is "the good life"? What is good and right in human living? In answering these questions, ethicists begin to diverge into different camps. Some would have us reflect on the aim of human life (Aristotle). Others look at obligation derived from respect for the law (Kant). Still others focus on the meanings of the words we use to speak of good and evil, right and wrong. Others in the fields of comparative ethics and moral anthropology study the way particular peoples, societies and cultures answer the question "What is the good?" Others again explore our responsibility to the Other (Levinas), or to obedience to the will of God. Each of these viewpoints gives us a different perspective on the search for the good. In order to grasp just how different ethical theories can be, consider the following three ethical thinkers - Aristotle, Kant and Levinas. Aristotle (384-322 BC): Teleological ethics Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer by Rembrandt van Rijn Photograph 1993 The Metropolitan Museum of Art (photo: omitted) Aristotle was born in Stagira, a northern colony of Greece bordering Macedonia. His father, the court physician, was a friend of King Amyntas II of Macedonia. Aristotle became friends with the King's son, Philip, a friendship that was to influence the course of civilization in later years. In all likelihood, Aristotle's father introduced him to anatomy and the medical practices and ideas of the time. From his childhood, he would have dissected and studied various organisms. Undoubtedly this influenced his ideas about how we come to know and understand the world and our place within it. His privileged childhood could not prevent the death of his parents when he was seventeen years old. He went to Athens at that time to continue his education in Plato's Academy. The philosopher Plato was recognized at the time as Greece's leading thinker. Plato recognized Aristotle's great intellectual abilities, and took him under his wing. However, the two of them approached philosophy very differently. While Plato focused on abstraction and the world of ideas, Aristotle explored the natural world and human experience. While Plato thrived on contemplation, Aristotle thrived on hands-on experience, observation and classification. Even though they saw the world differently, Aristotle had the greatest respect for his teacher and stayed with him for twenty-years. Plato died in 347 BC. Because of an upsurge in anti-Macedonian feeling, Aristotle left Athens for the Eastern Aegean. There he became political advisor to Hermeias, who was eager to foster learning in his extensive power base in Asia Minor. Aristotle marred Pythias, who was Hermeias's niece and adopted daughter. Unhappily, Hermeias offended the Persian king of the time and, as a result, was executed. Aristotle and Pythias fled for their lives. By this time (343 BC), Aristotle’s childhood friend, Philip, was King Philip of Macedonia. The king invited Aristotle to tutor his thirteen year-old son, Alexander. By all accounts, Alexander was rambunctious. However, Aristotle managed to teach him well and instilled in Alexander a respect for knowledge. We know this pupil as Alexander the Great, whose armies conquered and controlled much of Asia. Under Alexander's sponsorship, Aristotle established his own school, the Lyceum, in Athens. These were his most fruitful years. He wrote extensively on logic, metaphysics, theology, history politics, ethics, psychology anatomy, biology zoology astronomy, as well as the ancient equivalents of physics and chemistry. In 323 BC, Alexander the Great died, and there was again a backlash against all things associated with Macedonian rule. Aristotle, by his association with King Philip, and then with Alexander, found himself in a difficult position. Charges were brought against him for not respecting the gods of the state. (The same charge had been brought against the philosopher Socrates in 399 BC. Socrates was put to death, being forced to drink poison.) Aristotle fled for his life once again, but died within a year. Ancient historian Diogenes Laertius referred to 360 works by Aristotle. Tragically, much of his work was lost in the destruction of the great library of the Egyptian city of Alexandria. Only forty of his works survive today. The Lyceum in Athens continued - its power somewhat diminished - for another 500 years to challenge and influence much of subsequent Western thought. teleological: having to do with the design or purpose of something. For example, a house is built to live in, a clock made to keep time. But what of the "end" to which we as human beings aspire? Try thinking of this "end" not as an end point, but as completion, as fullness. Aristotle's teleological ethics So how did Aristotle’s ideas become a part of Catholic ethical reflection? In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-1274 ) - through Arab scholars - rediscovered Aristotle. Aquinas's teaching assured Aristotle an enduring place in the development of Catholic ethical theory. The pursuit of happiness At the core of Aristotle's ethics is political intent. Aristotle's first concern is not the individual. His first concern is the polis, the Greek city-state. The isolated person, outside the polis, must be "either a beast or a god." Aristotle’s ethics state that human life is shaped to its full extent in the context of a community. It is there that the citizen will find happiness. Aristotle does not equate happiness with pleasure. Pleasure, for Aristotle, was suitable for cattle. Pleasure is only momentary. Happiness, however, is an enduring state of someone who does well the tasks that are typical of a human being. Happiness is the condition of the good person who succeeds in living well and acting well. In the words of Aristotle As [all] knowledge and moral purpose aspires to some good, what is in our view the good at which the political science aims, and what is the highest of all practical goods? As to its name there is, I may say, a general agreement. The masses and the cultured classes agree in calling it happiness, and conceive that "to live well or "to do well" is the same thing as "to be happy." But as to the nature of happiness they do not agree, nor do the masses give the same account of it as the philosophers. (2) In other words, for Aristotle, ethics aims to discover what is good for us as human beings, what permits us to reach our potential, what is our internal compass, or what we are intended to be. For Aristotle, someone is happy "if and only if, over some considerable period of time, [that person] frequently performs with some success the most perfect of typically human tasks." (3) For example, according to Aristotle, happiness might me an learning to be a responsible and active citizen of your community, or developing a lifestyle that fosters good health. That is why we call his ethics teleological ethics. It is because teleological ethics derives from discovering the finality (telos) of what we are intended to be. Teleology Here is how Aristotle expresses teleology: Every art and every scientific inquiry, and similarly every action and purpose, may be said to aim at some good. Hence the good has been well defined as that at which all things aim. As there are various actions, arts, and sciences, it follows the ends are also various. Thus health is the end of medicine, a vessel of shipbuilding, victory [is the goal] of strategy, and wealth [is the aim] of domestic economy. If it is true that in the sphere of action there is an end which we wish for its own sake, and for the sake of which we wish everything else... it is clear that this will be the good or the supreme good. Does it not follow that the knowledge of this supreme good is of great importance for the conduct of life, and that, if we know it, we shall be like archers who have a mark at which to aim, we shall have a better chance of attaining what we want? (4) Above all else, according to Aristotle, we are intended to be rational. Our greatest capacity as humans is our intelligence. Following our internal compass means developing this capacity, not only in matters of science, but also in practical life - in developing our individual character. Humans are rational animals, and we must base our actions, as much as possible, on reasoning. To act ethically, therefore, is to engage our capacity to reason as we develop good character. That is the highest form of happiness. The good person is one whose actions as a rule are solidly based on excellent reasoning and who spends a great amount of time thinking. Human excellence When people seek to become who they are intended to be, they develop habits that represent the best of what it means to be human. Aristotle calls these excellences virtues. To act virtuously, that is, excellently, is to do things well, to act successfully as a human being. It means allowing reason to guide one's actions. Aristotle held that a good person would use reason to control desire. We choose deliberately to fulfill that which is the most appropriate for us as humans. We become virtuous by choosing continually to do virtuous things, so that these actions become ingrained in us like a habit. Moral virtue comes to us as a result of habit… The virtues we first get by exercising them, as also happens in the case of the arts as well. For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them, e.g., (people) become builders by building… So too we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.... If this were not so, there would have been no need of a teacher, but all… would be born good or bad at their craft... Thus in one word, states of character arise out of like activities. That is why the activities we exhibit must be of a certain kind; it is because the states of character correspond to the difference between these. It makes no small difference, then, whether we form habits of one kind or another from our very youth; it makes a very great difference, or rather all the difference. (5) Assume a virtue, if you have if not... For use almost can change the stamp of nature. Hamlet, Shakespeare (photo: omitted) The mean Aristotle was very aware of the need to maintain balance in our actions. We ought to avoid excess, but not necessarily to avoid something completely. If to drink wine were a good, then it would be good to drink neither too much, nor too little. This is Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean. Be moderate in all things. To be courageous is to avoid some but not all dangers; to be polite is to be courteous in some but not in all situations. To be generous is to stay somewhere between extravagance and stinginess. Try to stay in the middle, but in a middle that suits you as an individual. For you, for example, the mean for drinking may mean drinking in moderation, or not at all. First of all, it must be observed that the nature of moral qualities is such that they are destroyed by defect and by excess. We see the same thing happen in the case of strength and of health... excess as well as deficiency of physical exercise destroys our strength, and similarly, too much and too little food and drink destroys our health; the proportionate amount, however, produces, increases, and strengthens it. The same applies to self-control, courage, and the other virtues: the [one] who shuns and fears everything becomes a coward, whereas [an individual] who knows no fear at all and goes to meet every danger becomes reckless. Similarly, [one] who revels in every pleasure and abstains from none becomes self-indulgent, while [the person] who avoids every pleasure like a boor becomes what might be called insensitive. Thus we see that self-control and courage are destroyed by excess and deficiency and are preserved by the mean. (6) Teleological thinking: seeking to understand the ultimate goal, purpose or end of something. (Teleology derives from the Greek root telos, meaning goal, purpose or end, and logos, meaning study.) For example, from a teleological perspective, adolescence is a stage of development on the way to mature adulthood. Aristotelian self-realization, like happiness, is a by-product of living a well-balanced life. Douglas J. Soccio Guiding questions 1. Identify three key points from the ethical theory of Aristotle. 2. How would Aristotle describe "the good"? 3. In light of Aristotle's understanding of the good person, describe someone significant in your life that meets his criteria. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): Deontological ethics Immanuel Kant (image: omitted) "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe... the starry heavens above and the moral law within." (7) Immanuel Kant was barn and raised in Königsberg, a small city in east Prussia now part of northeast Germany. The fourth of eleven children, Immanuel experienced the rigours of poverty as well as a strict upbringing within a religious household. His parents were devout members of a Protestant sect know as Pietism. Pietists believed in personal devotion, Bible reading, and the universal priesthood of all the faithful. They lived severe, puritanical lives. Immanuel spent his whole life near his home. Apparently he never ventured more than 100 kilometres from his birthplace. His life, even from the age of eight, was characterized by a routine of study and work. A popular story about his life tells how townspeople could set their docks by the walks that he took at precisely 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Kant studied at the local university, and upon completing his studies, made a meager living working as a private tutor. Later, he worked as a private teacher at the university, paid directly by the students. Since he was a very popular teacher, he was able to make ends meet. However, it seems that as a young man he could not afford to get married. When he was forty-six years old, he was finally hired by the university as a professor of logic and metaphysics. Kant wrote many books - some of them are among the most difficult to comprehend. His Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787), by his admission, was the result of at least twelve years of reflection, and four or five months of hurried writing. (You will find some of the longest sentences ever written in that book!) Despite the difficulty of his writing, his influence on philosophy and Western thought is incalculable. Theoretical reason One of his primary concerns was clarifying how it is that humans come to know things. What role does experience play in our coming to know something? Can we know things that are beyond our immediate experience? What does this mean for scientific inquiry? Can we know and predict cause and effect? These types of questions pertain to the area called theoretical reason. This is the area of reasoning by which we come to know how the laws of nature, the laws of cause and effect, govern human behaviour. It is an area of life where freedom of choice is not an issue. Practical reason To understand how people make choices, however, we must look elsewhere. Kant proposed a category he called practical reason. Practical reason moves beyond scientific and empirical knowledge to the moral dimension guiding human behaviour. Within the realm of knowledge, humans act not only on impulse as affected by the laws of nature, but also out of conscious choice based on principles. Using the first category of theoretical reason, we can know only what people actually do. Using the second category of practical reason, we can come to understand what we ought to do. Lets look at an example of theoretical reason: We know the effect of alcohol consumption upon the body. Or to look at it from the perspective of practical reason, we know that we ought not to drink and drive. It is this concept of moral duty that Kant contributed to our understanding of ethics. Kant’s ethics Like Aristotle, Kant also held that the good is the aim of a moral life. But he approached the whole question of how one attains the good in quite a different way. Kant was primarily concerned about the certainty of the principles of ethical reasoning. He recognized that in the domain of ethics we cannot arrive at the same type of certainty as we can in physics and mathematics. Ethics presents us not with rational, cognitive certainty, but with practical certainty. In this practical area of our lives, he held that there are three areas of interest God, freedom and immortality. We may not be able to prove any of these empirically. Nonetheless, we need these practical principles - God, freedom and immortality - to be able to pursue and attain the supreme good. 1. God: Humans cannot out of their own power achieve the supreme good. There are too many circumstances beyond our control. For this reason, Kant proposes the existence of God to allow us to achieve the supreme good. 2. Freedom: If the supreme good is to be, in part, our achievement, then what we ought to do, we can do. To have the duty to do something, we must be able to do it. Therefore, Kant argues, humans are by nature free. 3. Immortality: Achieving the supreme good is an immense task. It is impossible to obtain it completely in this life. That is why there is immortality a life beyond, in which we can achieve the supreme good. empiricism: a theory that says that knowledge comes from experience, or from evidence that can be perceived by the senses. The good will To Aristotle, a "good person" seeks his or her happiness in the city-state of ancient Greece. Kant’s ethics is more individual. His ethics is to be discovered in private life, in the inner convictions and autonomy of the individual. In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785), Kant proposes how individuals attain the good. He begins by saying, "It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will." (8) For Kant, in all circumstances, what is to be prized above all else is a good will. It is our most precious possession, a good in itself. What is this "good will" For Kant it is the will to do our duty for no other reason than that it is our duty. That is why Kant’s ethical theory is known as deontological - from the Greek word deon, meaning "duty." This perspective is very different from Aristotle’s rational desire for the good. For Kant, what is central is the will. He acknowledges that it is not easy for humans to attain their purpose in life. Impulses and desires can easily draw us away from our duty. After all, our will is finite. We don't always manage to act according to our duty. For Kant, therefore, a human action is morally good when it is done for the sake of duty. An act of kindness done to a friend may be praiseworthy, but it is not a moral act. It becomes moral when you are kind to someone when you don't feel like being kind, when you are busy or when you are more inclined to do other things. For example, you might not want to go to your great aunts funeral, but it is your duty. You choose to go to honour the family. Real moral worth is motivated by duty, not by inclination, however valuable this inclination may be. In other words, moral worth is measured not by the results of one's actions, but by the motive behind them. Kant’s language is full of "shoulds." It is a language not of desires, but of "ought." For Kant, you are your own legislator. It is your autonomy, your decision, to act in accordance with your good will. You are not constrained by another. subjective: relating to a person's own perception and understanding of a reality; arising from the individual's own mind, feelings, perceptions. objective: relating to a sensible experience that is independent of any one individual's thought, and that can be perceived by others. (photo: omitted) Kant’s use of moral maxims The use of reason is central to the moral life. For Kant, duty is determined by principles (maxims) according to which we act. Say you decide to skip school and go to the movies. In this case, you would be acting on the principle, "I will avoid unpleasant things whenever something more pleasant offers itself, and the consequences of my action will not lead to greater unpleasantness." But this subjective principle is too obviously based on personal desires. To be ethical, an action must have a more objective principle. To be a principle, it must apply to everyone. An ethical maxim is one on which every rational person would necessarily act if reason were fully in charge of his or her actions. Principles tell us how we ought to act. But reason determines how this duty is universally applicable. In his most famous maxim Kant proposes: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law." (9) To put it another way, I should act in a way that l would want everyone else in the world to act. In other words, would we really want a world in which people felt free to skip out on school, their job, or their family whenever they felt like it in order to have some fun? Or, does it make sense that everyone has certain obligations to fulfill that come before personal desires? The person as an end, not a means A second moral imperative for Kant reads: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end." (10) Kant does not say that we should never treat others as a means. If that were the case, how could we ever have an economy and people working for another's benefit? A worker is a means of production, or a means of providing a service. Kant intended, rather, that people never be treated only as a means, that is, without regard to their dignity or their working conditions. It would be unethical to take advantage of workers who have little power relative to their employer, such as young people, immigrants, people with little education, or poor people. Workers must be respected. To use another example, it would be wrong for a coach to take on twelve athletes in order to get higher funding for the team, while secretly intending to play only six of them on a regular basis. In this case, the six extra players are being used simply as a means to get more money; they are not being treated as athletes in their own right. Kant was also somewhat of a utopian dreamer. He came up with the concept of a "kingdom of ends." In this kingdom, all participants would treat each other according to his second maxim (treat another as an end, not just as a means). He encouraged all people to act as if they were members of this kingdom, always acting out of respect for the other. In this kingdom all would act out of their rational will. No one would act on any principle that could not be made universal, for personal benefit, because of how one happened to feel about something, or because of any compulsion that came from personal philosophical or religious views. Above all, Kant valued the autonomy of the good will. He challenged people not to act like children under the control of another. Become a law unto yourself. He coined the slogan of the eighteenth century: Dare to know! Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the (moral) law. Kant Guiding questions 1. Identify three key points from the ethical theory of Kant. 2. How would Kant describe "the good"? 3. In light of Kant’s understanding of the good person, describe someone significant in your life that meets his criteria. Emmanuel Levinas (1905-1995): An ethics of the face Emmanuel Levinas (image: omitted) More than most major contemporary philosophers, Emmanuel Levinas was marked by the tragedies of the twentieth century particularly the Holocaust, or the Shoah. He was born in 1905 in Kaunas, Lithuania, to pious Jewish parents. At the age of seventeen he moved to France to begin his studies in philosophy at the University of Strassbourg. In 1928 he continued his studies in Freibourg, Germany. When he came to write his doctoral thesis, Levinas had begun to experience a profound contrast between Western philosophy and his own much more deeply rooted Jewish faith. The sameness of things Levinas perceived the Western philosophical tradition attempting to overcome all difference and diversity by grouping everything under an all-encompassing unity, which it called "Being." Everything ultimately carried a stamp of sameness. Westerners, he said, think out of a unified totality. It thinks away difference. Difference is reduced to being accidental ("accidental" in Aristotle's philosophy meant "not essential" because it changes in every individual). The singularity of things The Hebrew tradition, on the other hand, he said, gloried in the singular. This singularity of things gives each thing its identity. He could find nothing that would hold all of these singularities together in some kind of unity. He contrasted the Western notion of "totality" with the Hebrew notion of "infinity." When World War II brake out in 1939, he was mobilized into the French army. During the disastrous first month of the war in France, he was captured by the Germans. Although five years as a prisoner of war were a hardship, he escaped the dreadful fate of the rest of his family who had remained in Lithuania. His whole family died in the Holocaust. His wife and young daughter escaped deportation to the death camps, being hidden in a monastery in France until the end of the war, unable to communicate with him. The experience of the war and the Nazi horror had heightened Levinas's awareness of his Jewish roots. At the age of forty, he searched out an extraordinary Jewish teacher, Mordachi Chouchani. Chouchani was a mysterious, brilliant man, who looked like a tramp and who always seemed to be on the move. He instructed Levinas in the ways of the Jewish Talmud. Levinas was a good student, and from 1957 onward he himself began to give regular lectures on the Talmud for young Jewish intellectuals in France. Only at the age of fifty-five did Levinas complete his doctoral thesis, Totality and Infinity. (11) On the basis of this work he was offered a chair in philosophy at the University of Poitiers. In 1973, at the age of six-eight, he was named professor of philosophy at the most prestigious school in Paris, the Sorbonne. Only then did he obtain recognition by the philosophical world. He became a very popular writer. Only a few years after obtaining the chair in philosophy at the Sorbonne, he retired. Levinas never forgot his Jewish roots. When once he was invited to give a lecture at the University of Louvain, they inadvertently put the lecture on the Sabbath. Although the lecture hall was filled, Levinas did not show because observing the Sabbath was of higher value. He offered no apology. He continued to write and lecture until illness prevented him. He died shortly after the feast of Chanukah in 1995. Pope John Paul II holds great respect for Levinas. In a number of his writings, most evidently in The New Millennium, Pope John Paul II uses ideas similar to Levinas. In this letter, the Holy Father speaks of the face of Jesus as "A Face to Contemplate." On several occasions, Pope John Paul II invited Levinas to his summer home to hear from him his understanding of the major issues of our time. The Good is infinite Levinas's philosophy as a whole is ethical. Like Aristotle’s and Kant’s ethics, Levinas is in search of the good. For Levinas the good - actually, the "Good" - is the central question of all philosophy. Whereas most Western philosophies are in search of Being, Levinas went in search of the Good, which he said goes beyond Being. Being seeks to name what things have in common when you take away all the differences. For Levinas this concept of Being is dangerous because it takes away from reality what is its most fascinating quality: that each person or thing is incredibly unique. Levinas wants to maintain the uniqueness of each thought and act. The Good is interested, not in what is in common among things, but in what is absolutely unique about each person or thing. "Your face, O Lord, I seek" (Psalm 27.8) Pope John Paul II in The New Millennium reflects on Psalm 27.8: "Your face, O Lord, I seek." In the face of Christ, he says, "God has truly blessed us … and has made 'his face to shine upon us'" (Psalm 67.1). "Being God and human at the same time, he reveals to us also the true face of humans, 'fully revealing humans to themselves.'" (12) Levinas calls these unique things and persons "traces" of the Good, or God. No tangible object is ever identical to God, or the Good. Everything we encounter is finite. The trace of God in things and persons is not a faint presence of God. We do not encounter God anywhere, but only a trace of God. A trace says that God was there but is no longer there. God has gone ahead. The Infinite One is always one step ahead of us. Take a look at the cover photo of this book. God is like the sun. We see traces of the sun in the picture; the light on the water, the bright light at the edge of the picture. But we see only a glimpse of the grandeur that is there. The sun is beyond the point of vision. The face as witness of the Good If the Good is Infinite and is always one step ahead of us, where do we encounter the traces that God has been there? Here Levinas goes to the experience of the human face that turns to me and looks at me. The face is the most naked part of the human body. In one of his articles Levinas lashes out against make-up. He sees it as an attempt to hide. But despite all efforts (he may not have thought of coloured contact lenses) the eyes can never be made up. The eyes penetrate every mask. In another's eyes we make immediate, direct contact. Think of a time you had an absolute experience of another: a face-to-face experience that touched you deeply. Levinas says that such an experience calls fort a "thrill of astonishment." Such an experience is the most original moment of meaning. In the eyes of the other you meet a stranger, one whom you cannot reduce to being you. She or he is "Other." And in this person's look. the Other calls you not to reduce his or her face to being the same as any other face. This person's face is a "No": a refusal to let you reduce the face or to deny the face in its uniqueness. Levinas goes so far as to translate this "No!" as "You shall not murder." You are not to take the otherness away. The face is an authority, "highness, holiness, divinity." In the Other, you see one who is not your equal, but your superior. Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me. (Matthew 25.34-36) (photo: omitted) The idea of infinity... is an overflowing of... new powers to the soul... - powers of welcome, of gift, of full hands, of hospitality. Levinas The face as ethical But how is this ethical? The face that Levinas is referring to is not the face of an authority figure. The superiority of the face comes from elsewhere: the Other is a stranger, one who is totally defenceless, uprooted. Levinas refers to the Book of Deuteronomy (10.18), where the Israelites are told to love the stranger as themselves because the Lord watches over the stranger. The stranger is one whose very existence is threatened, one with no economic stability or security, one who is socially marginalized and without rights. It is at this point, according to Levinas, that the face becomes ethical. Recognizing the Other's depth of misery or humility is what makes the command or appeal of the face ethical. The face of the stranger (recall the face of the beggar in the story on page 9) demands that you recognize it and provide it hospitality. The defenceless poverty in this face cannot force you to do anything. That is why she can only ask that you assist her in her misery. The face makes the absolute demand come across as a petition, as "please." As Levinas says, "The being that expresses itself imposes itself but does so precisely by appealing to me with its destitution and nudity - its hunger - without being able to be deaf to that appeal. Thus in expression the being that imposes itself does not limit but promotes my freedom, by arousing my goodness." (13) The face hardly dares to solicit your hospitality. The face is the beggar with bent head and mumbling voice. (14) This is how the face makes you responsible, by making you aware that you

Related Downloads
Comments (1)
2 months ago
Thanks for these educational materials! I appreciate any help that can be useful to me in the educational process. Recently, my academic performance has worsened. I think this is due to many nursing tasks, which I cannot handle. I urgently need to fix this situation and therefore I turned to this source https://nursingwriting.org/nursing-homework-help/ I realized that I could not cope with my tasks without help.
Last modified by Gary Stokley  (2 months ago)
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  162 People Browsing
 395 Signed Up Today