In his 2001 book, With the Grain of the Universe, Stanley Hauerwas has made an extended case for Karl Barth as the model for how to do Christian ethics, and for Reinhold Niebuhr as the model for how not to do it. Though Barth's closer and deeper theological connection to the Christian tradition appeals to a Jewish traditionalist by analogy, nevertheless, Niebuhr's approach to social ethics, based as it is on a version of natural law, is of greater appeal. That (...) is because it is more philosophically arguable in a secular society and culture, and because it is more politically effective there. It is what made Niebuhr a more effective opponent of Nazism than was Barth. Also, Niebuhr's version of natural law is not a christianized version of Stoic natural law teaching but, rather, a profound use of the biblical prohibition of idolatry, having heretofore unnoticed affinities with rabbinic developments of that prohibition. (shrink)

It is by way of the call that one is enabled to wake up to responsibility. What is the illocutionary mood of the ‘call’ of conscience, though? Is this transcendental enabler of responsibility an imposing demand or an invitational question? Both Levinas and Heidegger emphasize the impositional character of the call in conscience. The call seems to be the very essence of imperatives. I develop an apology for questioning by way of appeal to crumbs scattered throughout Jewish traditions as well (...) as throughout the works of Levinas and Heidegger. Perhaps we are invited to be rather than told to be. (shrink)

La desconstrucción permite situarnos en los límites de la textualidad articulada desde el logos ontometafísico. Constituye de este modo, una plataforma de lectura comprensiva del lenguaje, que busca en su expresión metafórica, la nominación y renominación del ser, en una acción aplazante de su existencia, más allá de los sistemas de significación logocéntricos. En este artículo, se asume esta lectura- ímite para desplazarnos sobre un vasto campo discursivo (metafísico) con la intención de movernos hacia una exterioridad anterior al lenguaje, a (...) la palabra que nombra a Dios, para situarnos finalmente, desde los sistemas de significación ontometafísicos, frente al Dios innombrable, manifiesto en el otro hombre que arrojado en la existencia, reclama nuestra responsabilidad respecto a su profundo y permanente estado de vulnerabilidad. (shrink)

In this article, I present a case for a kind of existential theology which would be philosophical and metaphysical, though not broadly Platonic and classical, and biblical though not illogical. What I present will be an attempt to clarify and justify what I call "existential hayatological theism". In so doing I will draw on insights from what Edmond La B Cherbonnier and Claude Tresmontant designated as "biblical philosophy" and "biblical metaphysics" as well as from the neo-classical philosophies of Charles Hartshorne (...) and Alfred North Whitehead, especially that of Whitehead. (shrink)

In this essay, the author considers how one particular faith community, contemporary Judaism, in all its internal diversity, has reflected on the issue of how far the project of genetic intervention ought to go when the subject of the future - embodied, willful, and vulnerable - is at stake. Knowing, naming, and acting to change is not only a narrative of faith traditions; it is a narrative of biological science as well.

Utilitarianism focuses on the optimization of personal well being in ways that seems to make the practice of medicine irrelevant to the well being of the practitioners, unless given external incentives such as money or honor. Care based on indirect incentives is considered inferior to care motivated internally. This leads to the paradox of utilitarian care. Following Nozick's conceptual Pleasure Machine it is argued that in addition to the promotion of personal well being, people care about fulfilling their well being (...) in a world which is real, just, good, and beautiful. Complete mechanization of social and personal life in accordance with a strict utilitarian regime is also incompatible with the kind of world people desire, even if it promises more fulfillments in terms of personal well being. This explains the so-called Taurek-Parfit paradox, according to which sometimes ethics seems “to count the numbers” and sometimes not. The very pursuit of utilitarianism does not contribute to any personal life plan. The helping professions make the world a better place for us to live in, even though they do not necessarily bear directly on the well being of any individual other than the recipients of care. This resolves the paradox of utilitarian care. (shrink)