Advertisement

Sophia

pp 1–18 | Cite as

Bonhoeffer and Løgstrup: the Ethics of Disclosure in a State of Exception

  • Petra Brown
  • Patrick StokesEmail author
Article

Abstract

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Knud Ejler Løgstrup were WWII contemporaries: Lutheran theologians and religious figures in their respective German and Danish communities; both active in the anti-Nazi resistance. Being involved in the resistance, Bonhoeffer and Løgstrup were required to rethink what it meant to be ethical, in particular in relation to disclosure and the telling of truth, in a situation of war. In this paper, we consider the grounds on which both Løgstrup and Bonhoeffer acted, their belief in a duty or requirement to resist, in light of the more general problem presented by resistance as action undertaken in a state of exception. We investigate the distinction between the normativity of ordinary or stable time, and action required in a state of exception, using the specific example of truth-telling as a normative demand and its conflict with the exceptional imperative to lie. The example of truth-telling raises important questions about the role of agency and phronetic judgment in a state of exception. In order to determine a foundation for such judgment, we turn to the framework adapted by both Bonhoeffer and Løgstrup to ground their requirement to lie: Luther’s concept of three estates. We consider how their respective concepts of mandates and laws of life/sovereign expressions of life both illuminate and highlight the more general problem of the relation between norm and exceptional action.

Keywords

Bonhoeffer Løgstrup Ethics Truth Resistance Exception 

References

  1. Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception. Translated by Kevin Attell. Chicago. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, S. (2017). Kierkegaard’s Demand, Transformed by Løgstrup. In H. Fink & R. Stern (Eds.), What is ethically demanded? K.E. Løgstrup's philosophy of moral life (pp. 151–167). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33(124), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barth, K. (2006). Church Dogmatics Vol iii. Part 4. The doctrine of creation. London: T&T Clark.Google Scholar
  5. Bethge, E. (2000). Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography Translated by V. J. Barnett. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bok, S. (1979). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  7. Bonhoeffer. (2009). Ethics. Translated by R. Krauss, C. C. West, & D. W. In Stott. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bonhoeffer. (2006). Conspiracy and Imprisonment1940-1945. Transalted by J. Glenthøj, U. Kabitz, & W. In Krötke. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, P. (2013). Bonhoeffer, Schmitt, and the state of exception. Pacifica: Australasian Theological Studies, 26(3), 246–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charles, J. D. (2008). Retrieving the Natural Law: A Return to Moral First Things. Michigan. Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  11. DeJonge, M. (2017). Bonhoeffer’s reception of Luther. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elshtain, J. B. (2001). Bonhoeffer on modernity: Sic et non. Journal of Religious Ethics, 29(3), 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gides, D. M. (2011) Pacifism, Just War, and Tyrannicide: Bonhoeffer's Church-World Theology and His Changing Forms of Political Thinking and Involvement. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick.Google Scholar
  14. Green, C. J. (2005). Pacifism and Tyrannicide: Bonhoeffer's Christian peace ethic. Studies in Christian Ethics, 18, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gustafson, J. M. (1978). Protestant and Roman Catholic Ethics. Chicago. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Huber, C. (1947). Kurt Huber zum Gedächtnis, Bildnis eines Menschen, Denkers und Forschers, dargestellt von seinen Freunden. Regensburg: Josef Habbel.Google Scholar
  17. Laurence, B. (2015). Juridical Laws as moral Laws in Kant’s the doctrine of right. In G. Pavlakos & V. Rodriguez-Blanco (Eds.), Reasons and intentions in law and practical agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lenowitz, J. (2008). Obedience at the time of Necessitá: Dietrich Bonhoeffer”s theory of resistance. In Annual Meeting of Western Political Science Association, 1–53, San Diego.Google Scholar
  19. Løgstrup, K. E. (1943). Folkeliv og Udenrigspolitik. Copenhagen: Tidehverv.Google Scholar
  20. Løgstrup, K. E. (1972). Norm og Spontaneitet: Etik og Politik Mellem Teknokrati og Dilettantokrati. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  21. Løgstrup, K. E. (1982). System og Symbol. Copenhagen: Gylendal.Google Scholar
  22. Løgstrup, K. E. (1997). The Ethical Demand. Translated by T. I. Jensen, G. Puckering, & E. Watkins. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  23. Løgstrup, K. E. (2007). Beyond the ethical demand. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  24. Løgstrup, K. E. (2010). Den Etiske Fordring. Aarhus: Klim.Google Scholar
  25. Machiavelli. (1988). The Prince. Translated by R. In Price. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. MacIntyre, A. (2007). Human nature and human dependence: What might a Thomist learn from reading Løgstrup? In S. Andersen & K. van Kooten Niekerk (Eds.), Concern for the other: Perspectives on the ethics of K. E. Løgstrup (pp. 147–166). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  27. MacIntyre, A. (2010). Danish ethical demands and French common goods: Two moral philosophies. European Journal of Philosophy, 18(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGrath, A. E. (1998). Iustitia Dei: A history of the Christian doctrine of justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Niekerk, K. v. K. (2011). Rettens pris. In B. Rabjerg & R. Dybdal (Eds.), Menneskets Ondskab og Livets Godhed: Løgstrups Filososofi om Tilværelsen (pp. 153–161). Aarhus: University of Aarhus Press.Google Scholar
  30. Niekerk, K. v. K. (2017). Løgstrup’s conception of the sovereign expressions of life. In H. Fink & R. Stern (Eds.), What is ethically demanded? K.E. Løgstrup’s philosophy of moral life (pp. 186–215). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  31. O'Gorman, N. (2005). “Telling the truth”: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s rhetorical discourse ethic. Journal of Communication & Religion, 28(2), 224–248.Google Scholar
  32. Rabjerg, B. (2007). Løgstrups kritik af Kierkegaard: Den uendelige kvalitative forskel på fortabelse og kærlighed. Res Cogitans, 1(4), 20–58.Google Scholar
  33. Rasmussen, L. (2005). Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and resistance. Louisville: Kentucky Westminster John Knox Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ratnapala, S. (2009). Jurisprudence: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmitt, C. (2005). Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. Translated by G. Schwab. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stokes, P. (2017a). Spontaneity and perfection: MacIntyre vs. Løgstrup. In H. Fink & R. Stern (Eds.), What is ethically demanded? K. E. Løgstrup’s philosophy of moral life (pp. 275–299). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  37. Stokes, P. (2017b). Towards a new epistemology of moral progress. European Journal of Philosophy, 25(4), 1824–1843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walzer, M. (1973). Political action: The problem of dirty hands. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2(2), 160–180.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations