Situation ethics the new morality by Joseph Fletcher Ситуативная этика



страница11/13
Дата11.05.2016
Размер1.41 Mb.
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13

Путь вопрошаания
Джордж Бернард Шоу где-то заметил, что логика занимается разумными основаниями (reasons), которые мы придаем вещам, в то время как этика занимается вещами, которым мы придаем разумные основания. Христианская этика предусматривает то и другое, с ее расчетами любви и любящими расчетами. И если бы мы должны были суммировать все то, о чем мы говорили, в одной простой формуле, мы могли бы изложить это так: «христианская этика или моральная теология – не схема жизни в соответствии с неким кодексом, но непрерывное усилие применить любовь к миру относительного путем казуистики, следующей требованиям любви; ее постоянная задача – вырабатывать стратегию и тактику любви, ради Христа».
Luther urged that the vocation of the Christian is to be a Christ to his neighbors. God does not need our service; we only serve God by serving our neighbors. And that is how we return his love. It is the only way we can return it. In the language of an American Lutheran, Joseph Sittler, "love is the function of faith horizontally just as prayer is the function of faith vertically".218
Лютер утверждал, что призвание христианина в том, чтобы быть Христом своим ближним. Бог не нуждается в наших услугах; мы не можем послужить Богу иначе, как послужив ближним. И только так мы можем отплатить Ему за Его любовь. Это – единственный способ, каким мы можем это сделать. По выражению американского лютеранина Джозефа Ситтлера (Joseph Sittler), «любовь – это горизонтальная функция веры, как молитва – ее вертикальная функция»25.
The modern history of the arts and sciences, and of the technologies that undergird them, makes it plain that they no longer bow down to nor cut their cloth to authoritarian principles. Their lifeline is no more handed down in advance or dropped from above by "revelation" or majesty. Men have turned to inductive and experimental methods of approach, working by trial and error, appealing to experience to validate their tentative and loosely held generalizations. As a strategy or method of inquiry and growth, it has worked with unprecedented success. Psychology, for example, got its start and growth this way. The same is true in many other sectors of the growing edge of the human enterprise. Now, at last, ethics and moral inquiry are doing it too. This is the new turn in the history of Christian ethics. This is the temper of clinical, case-centered, situational "concretion"—to use Bonhoeffer's word.

In a free society we have no official ethics any more than we have an official faith or political philosophy. But we can have a moral consensus. After all, it is not necessary to agree on an ethic to achieve living unity just as we need not hold a common epistemology or theory of knowledge to have an agreed body of scientific learning. Situation ethics is the most promising road to a moral community.


История современных искусства и науки, как и технологий, лежащих в их основании, явно обнаруживает, что они больше не склоняются перед авторитарными принципами и не подгоняют себя под их мерки. Отныне направление их развития не предопределено и не спущено свыше божественным откровением или земной властью. Человечество перешло к индуктивному и экспериментальному методам исследования, действуя путем проб и ошибок, обращаясь к эксперименту за подтверждением своих предположительных и не жестких обобщений. В качестве стратегии или метода исследования и поступательного развития, этот подход действовал с беспрецедентным успехом. Психология, например, родилась и развивалась именно так. Это же верно для многих других областей растущей области человеческой деятельности. Ныне, наконец, этим же путем последовали этика и моральное исследование. Это – новый поворот в истории христианской этики. В этом характер строгой, ориентированной на определенные случаи, ситуативной «конкреции» – используя термин Бонхеффера. У нас, в свободном обществе, нет официальной этики, как нет официальной религии или политической философии. Но мы можем обрести моральный консенсус. В конце концов, нет необходимости в согласии относительно одной какой-нибудь <системы> этики для того, чтобы прийти к возможности общежития, так же как мы не нуждаемся в единой эпистемологии или теории познания для того, чтобы иметь общепризнанный корпус научных знаний. Ситуативная этика – наиболее обещающий путь к нравственному сообществу.
So, to make an end, let us say with John Dewey and James Tufts: "Of one thing we may be sure. If inquiries are to have any substantial basis, if they are not to be wholly up in the air, the theorist must take his departure from the problems which men actually meet in their own conduct. He may define and refine these; he may divide and systematize; he may abstract the problems from their concrete contexts in individual lives; he may classify them when he has detached them; but if he gets away from them he is talking about something which his own brain has invented, not about moral realities".219
Итак, в заключение, позвольте сказать вместе с Джоном Дьюи (John Dewey) и Джеймсом Тафтсом (James Tufts): «В одном мы можем быть уверены. Если исследования должны иметь некий субстанциальный базис, если им не следует полностью витать в облаках, теоретик обязан отталкиваться от тех проблем, с которыми люди реально имеют дело в собственной жизни. Он может определять и уточнять их; может подразделять и систематизировать; может абстрагировать проблемы от их конкретного контекста в индивидуальных существованиях; он может их классифицировать после того, как их таким образом выделит; но если он от них устраняется, он говорит о чем-то, что изобрел его собственный мозг, но не о моральных реальностях»26.

1 Bennett, "Ethical Principles and the Context," unpublished presidential address, American Society of Christian Ethics, 1961; Williams, What Present-Day Theologians Are Thinking, rev. ed. (Harper & Brothers, 1959), pp. 114 ff.

2 See the superb survey by J. M. Gustafson, "Christian Ethics," loc. cit., pp. 285-354.

3 A. N. Whitehead, Modes of Thought (The Macmillan Company, 1938), p. 15.

4 Conscience and Compromise: An Outline of Protestant Casuistry (The Westminster Press, 1954).

5 E.g., Ethics, p. 258.

6 E.g., Church Dogmatics, Vol. Ill, Bk. 4, pp. 7-8.

7 Ethics, p. 66.

8 Church Dogmatics, Vol. Ill, Bk. 4, p. 9.

9 Summa Theologica, ii.2, q. 120, a.l.

10 Some Principles, p. 208n.

11 Moral and Pastoral Theology (Sheed 8c Ward, Inc., 1935), Vol. I, p. 187.

12 William Lazareth, Luther on the Christian Home (Muhlenberg Press, 1960), p. 122.

13 W. G. Maclagan, "Respect for Persons as a Moral Principle", in Philosophy, Vol. 35 (I960), pp. 193-217, 289-305.

14 Phil. 1:9. (Флп. 1: 9)

15 J. J. Farraher, S.J., "Notes on Moral Theology", Theological Studies, Vol. XVI (1955), p. 239.

16 The Thomist, Vol. XVIII (1955), p. 94.

17 Honest to God, p. 117.

18 The Ethics of Decision (Muhlenberg Press, 1955), pp. 3-5.

19 The Four Loves (Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1960), p. 178.

20 In Christian Faith and Social Action, ed. by J. A. Hutchison (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1953), pp. 102-114.

21 Human Society in Ethics and Politics, p. viii.

22 Reason in Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), p. 219.

23 Conscience and Christ (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., Ltd., 1916), p. 126.

24 See John McIntyre, On the Love of God (Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1962).

25 The Structure of Christian Ethics (Louisiana University Press, 1958), p. 64.

26 Ethics (Henry Holt & Company, 1908), p. 212.

X
An Appendix: Two Other Corruptions and Four Cases


Just to tidy things up before we close the covers on this essay, we should note that legalism is not the only travesty of Christian ethics giving it a bad image. There are two others, two other characteristic corruptions we ought at least to put into the record. Each could stand a book-length scrutiny itself. They are pietism and moralism, and like legalism, they distort what is good into what is bad. Corruptio optimi pessima: it is the corruption of the best which is worst.
Pietism
These corruptions throw things out of focus. Pietism tends to corrupt religion by separating faith from society and daily life. Just as legalism is a distortion of legality, so pietism is a distortion of piety; legalism absolutizes and idolizes law, and pietism individualizes and subjectivizes piety. It reduces religion to religiosity by making it purely a personal and internal "spiritual" or mystical affair irrelevant to economic and political matters. It encourages the notion that religion ought not to "interfere" with politics or business, as if they were mutually exclusive spheres. It hates holy worldliness.

Pietism discards the Bible's prophetic combination of faith and action in favor of priestly softness and quietism, allowing a "social" side to religion only in a sect's or church's ingroup interests, in churchy affairs. It frowns upon all Christian involvement in questions of economic, racial, or political justice. It is always conservative, in fear of new forces, and often pours holy water on rightist extremism. One Philadelphia oil magnate has for years offered a major Protestant body huge sums of money on condition that its ministers would not "meddle" in secular affairs. Pietism, being what it is, gives aid and comfort to the secularization of culture and society by itself endorsing their divorce from faith, not only for the faithless (with whom the divorce makes sense) but even for the faithful.

To show what pietism is not, recall the rector of a congregation of West Indians in Miami who several years ago refused to surrender a list of Dade County members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), for whom he was secretary, because he knew perfectly well the state legislature's investigating committee was not engaged in sincere research to frame legislation. He knew they wanted to get the names of Negro "militants" and fire them from public service jobs in schools, welfare agencies, highway projects, and so on. The rector was willing to leave his parish and altar and pulpit untended and go to jail, agapeically, for the sake of love-justice in the civil rights struggle. (He was finally upheld by the courts, defended by a Negro attorney, Thurgood Marshall, who is now Solicitor General—so marches the cause!)

As Shaw said in his preface to Androcles and the Lion, the cry that religion ought not to "interfere" in politics and economics is always raised by those who do not want their power or their property threatened "by Jesus or any other reformers".


Moralism
A second deadly distortion is moralism. Just as legalism absolutizes law and pietism individualizes piety, so moralism trivializes morality. It reduces ethics to pettifoggery or microethics, like the "microeconomics" John Galbraith described in The Affluent Society.220 Moralism makes the moral life a matter of petty disciplines; it condemns smoking, dancing, playing cards, Sunday fun, drinking any alcoholic beverages, kissing and petting, missing church, having sinful thoughts, and the like, but never shows much concern for great issues of love and justice, never makes significant or daring demands upon men of goodwill. With this moral triviality often goes a kind of "works doctrine" in which the idea is that we are "saved" by being "good" and can be saved by following these petty, puritanical prohibitions.

Jesus' sarcastic remark about straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel fits moralism perfectly, as does his thrust at the Pharisaic opposition who paid tithes of mint and dill and cummin but ignored the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faith (Matt. 23:23—24).

Yet another feature of moralism's triviality is that its ethic is an easy ethic as well as petty. By its radical reduction of the complexity and opacity of ethics to a code of moral minutiae, it cuts down "righteousness" to manageable size. Here again we have a reason for recalling Schweitzer's remark that an easy conscience is an invention of the devil.

America in the last two decades has seen an increase of religious activity and a decline of moral concern. Both the religion and the morals have been of a highly conventional or customary kind. When Father Drolet of the Roman Catholic Church and Mr. Foreman of The Methodist Church stood together in front of a picket line of their own people (who were trying to prevent integration of a New Orleans school), one holding aloft a crucifix and the other a Bible, to shame their people into going back to their homes, nobody saw any connection between Christ, the Scriptures, and racial justice and loving-kindness.

All the abstract or "in principle" preachments in the world will not get at the truth about us—whether we are or are not legalistic, pietistic, moralistic. Only concrete cases count. It is not ethics in general or ethical principles that truly assert anything meaningful; what does make meaningful assertions is hyphenated principles: "love and," love and situations. Love and a school integration; love and a subpoena; love and an abortion following incest by force and violence; love and a chance to get away with shoddy work; love and a hospital strike or a strike by doctors against medical social security legislation.

Here are four actual cases, no solutions included, to test our ethical method—exercises of a "sensitivity training" kind.


Christian Cloak and Dagger
I was reading Clinton Gardner's Biblical Faith and Social Ethics221 on a shuttle plane to New York. Next to me sat a young woman of about twenty-eight or so, attractive and well turned out in expensive clothes of good taste. She showed some interest in my book, and I asked if she'd like to look at it. "No," she said, "I'd rather talk." What about? "Me." That was a surprise, and I knew it meant good-by to the reading I needed to get done. "I have a problem I can't get unconfused about. You might help me to decide," she explained. This was probably on the strength of what I was reading.

I learned that she had been educated in church-related schools, a first-rate college, and was now a buyer in women's shoes for a Washington store. We agreed, however, to remain mutually anonymous. Her problem? "O.K. This is it. One of our intelligence agencies wants me to be a kind of counterespionage agent, to lure an enemy spy into blackmail by using my sex". To test her Christian sophistication, I asked if she believed Paul's teaching about how our sex faculties are to be used, as in First Corinthians. Quickly she said, "Yes, if you mean that bit in the sixth chapter—your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. But," she added, "the trouble is that Paul also says, 'The powers that be are ordained of God'. "

The defense agency wanted her to take a secretary's job in a western European city, and under that cover "involve" a married man who was working for a rival power. Married men are as vulnerable to blackmail as homosexuals. They did not put strong pressure on her. When she protested that she couldn't put her personal integrity on the block, as sex for hire, they would only say: "We understand. It's like your brother risking his life or limb in Korea. We are sure this job can't be done any other way. It's bad if we have to turn to somebody less competent and discreet than you are".

So. We discussed it as a question of patriotic prostitution and personal integrity. In this case, how was she to balance loyalty and gratitude as an American citizen over against her ideal of sexual integrity?


Sacrificial Adultery
As the Russian armies drove westward to meet the Americans and British at the Elbe, a Soviet patrol picked up a Mrs. Bergmeier foraging food for her three children. Unable even to get word to the children, and without any clear reason for it, she was taken off to a prison camp in the Ukraine. Her husband had been captured in the Bulge and taken to a POW camp in Wales.
Жертвенная измена
Когда русские войска продвигались на запад, на встречу на Эльбе с американскими и британскими войсками, советский патруль схватил некую г-жу Бергмайер, искавшую пропитание для своих троих детей. Не имея возможности передать ни слова детям, и без всяких ясных причин, она была увезена в лагерь на Украине. Ее муж был взят в плен в Арденнах (in the Bulge) и заключен в лагерь для военнопленных в Уэльсе.
When he was returned to Berlin, he spent weeks and weeks rounding up his children; two (Use, twelve, and Paul, ten) were found in a detention school run by the Russians, and the oldest, Hans, fifteen, was found hiding in a cellar near the Alexander Platz. Their mother's whereabouts remained a mystery, but they never stopped searching. She more than anything else was needed to reknit them as a family in that dire situation of hunger, chaos, and fear.
Когда он вернулся в Берлин, он провел многие недели в поисках своих детей; двое (Узе, двенадцати лет, и Пауль, десяти) были найдены в русской школе для арестованных, а старший, пятнадцатилетний Ганс, был обнаружен прячущимся в подвале рядом с Александр Платц. Местонахождение матери оставалось тайной, но они не прекращали поиски. Она больше, чем все другое, была необходима для воссоединения семьи в той жуткой ситуации голода, хаоса и страха. Между тем, на Украине, г-жа Бергмайер узнала от доброжелательного коменданта, что ее муж и семья пытаются объединиться и разыскивают ее. Но закон позволял освободить ее из заключения только по двум основаниям: (1) болезнь, требующая медицинской помощи, которую нельзя оказать в лагере; (2) беременность, в случае которой ее должны были вернуть в Германию как нетрудоспособную.
Meanwhile, in the Ukraine, Mrs. Bergmeier learned through a sympathetic commandant that her husband and family were trying to keep together and find her. But the rules allowed them to release her for only two reasons: (1) illness needing medical facilities beyond the camp's, in which case she would be sent to a Soviet hospital elsewhere, and (2) pregnancy, in which case she would be returned to Germany as a liability.

She turned things over in her mind and finally asked a friendly Volga German camp guard to impregnate her, which he did. Her condition being medically verified, she was sent back to Berlin and to her family. They welcomed her with open arms, even when she told them how she had managed it. When the child was born, they loved him more than all the rest, on the view that little Dietrich had done more for them than anybody.


Она обдумала эти обстоятельства и в конце концов обратилась к дружески настроенному охраннику из немцев Поволжья сделать ее беременной, что он и исполнил. Ее положение было медицинским образом засвидетельствовано, и она была отправлена в Берлин к семье. Семья приняла ее с распростертыми объятиями, хотя она рассказала, каким образом ей удалось этого добиться. Когда ребенок родился, его любили особенно, поскольку маленькому Дитриху семья была обязана больше всех.
When it was time for him to be christened, they took him to the pastor on a Sunday afternoon. After the ceremony they sent Dietrich home with the children and sat down in the pastor's study, to ask him whether they were right to feel as they did about Mrs. Bergmeier and Dietrich. Should they be grateful to the Volga German? Had Mrs. Bergmeier done a good and right thing?
Когда пришло время крещения, в воскресенье пополудни его понесли к пастору <церкви мормонов? – А.К.>. После церемонии взрослые отправили Дитриха с детьми домой и уединились с пастором в его кабинете, чтобы обсудить, правы ли они в своих чувствах относительно г-жи Бергмайер и Дитриха. Должны ли они быть благодарными тому немцу с Волги? Совершила ли г-жа Бергмайер доброе и правое дело?
"Himself Might His Quietus Make"
A staff doctor asked me to drop in on Jim. In his middle forties, married, five children, Jim had been in the hospital for more than a month, in a series of biopsies, X rays, blood tests, even exploratory surgery, to diagnose a breakdown in his digestive system.

He explained that a year or so earlier he'd started having cramps after meals, went the "Turns route" with patent medicines of various kinds—nothing helped. A doctor said it might be an ulcer, but Jim was too busy for a GI series and kept at his work as construction engineer for a big builder of roads, bridges, and the like. We were just getting into things when the nurse arrived to ready him for some more tests. He thought they were to be final and would wrap it up one way or another. I left saying I'd be back again the next afternoon.

I found him in the solarium, looking very down and out. He thought we ought to go back to his room to talk, and when we got there he told me: "They say I have about three years, maybe less, that only a miracle can save me. They can only give me some stuff that will keep me alive a while. I can leave here tomorrow but can't do any work, just rest and take pills." After a pause he added: "The pills cost $40 about every three days. Who can afford that? They say if I stop them, then six months and I've had it."

We discussed it a bit and then he blurted out: "You know what is really bugging me? The company has me insured for $100,000, double indemnity. That's all the insurance I have. It's all I can leave Betts and the kids. If I take the pills and live past next October, then the policy will undoubtedly be canceled when it comes up for renewal. If I don't take them, at least my family will have some security. If I kill myself, they get even more. If I take the pills, borrow the money for them, and then the policy lapses, that will mean that they are going to be left penniless and in debt so that even the house goes. Over the hill, the poor house, and the kids farmed out. If I don't take the pills, I'm killing myself same as if I commit suicide with a razor or gas, seems to me." He closed his eyes.

"What would you do? How does it look to you? I want to do the right thing." We talked it over.
Special Bombing Mission No. 13
Early on August 6, 1945, the Enola Gay lifted off the airstrip on Tinian and a few hours later in broad daylight dropped a new weapon of mass extermination (they called it "Little Boy") on unsuspecting Hiroshima.222 They had pretended to be on a routine weather mission, just as Powers did later in his famous U-2 over Sverdlovsk in 1960.

When the crew saw the explosion, they were silent. Captain Lewis uttered six words, "My God, what have we done?" Three days later another one fell on Nagasaki. About 152,000 were killed, many times more were wounded and burned, to die later. The next day Japan sued for peace.


Специальное летное задание № 13 <атомная бомбардировка Хиросимы и Нагасаки>
Рано утром 6 августа 1945 года Энола Гей <Enola Gay - собственное имя стратегического бомбардировщика Boeing B-29 Superfortress армии США, данное машине пилотом Полом Тибетсом в честь его матери. – А.К.> оторвался от взлетной полосы на острове Тиниан и спустя несколько часов среди бела дня сбросил новое средство массового уничтожения (бомбу прозвали «Малыш») на ничего не подозревавшую Хиросиму.3 Полет симулировал обычную метеорологическую задачу, точно так же, как Вооруженные силы делали это позже со знаменитым U-2 над Свердловском в 1960-м году.

Когда экипаж увидел произведенный взрыв, все онемели. Капитан Льюис выдавил шесть слов – «Боже мой, что мы наделали?» («My God, what have we done?»).

Тремя днями позже другая бомба обрушилась на Нагасаки. Около 152000 человек были убиты сразу, во много раз большее количество были ранены и, с ожогами, умерли впоследствии. На следующий день Япония запросила мира.
Harry Truman had known nothing of the bomb until after his inauguration, following President Roosevelt's death. When Secretary Stimson told President Truman that "the most terrible weapon ever known" would soon be ready, he appointed an interim committee to consider how and when it should be used. They were all distinguished and responsible people on the committee. Most but not all of its military advisers favored using it. Winston Churchill joined them in favor. Top-level scientists said they could find no acceptable alternative to using it, but they were opposed by equally able scientists.



Поделитесь с Вашими друзьями:
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13


База данных защищена авторским правом ©dogmon.org 2019
обратиться к администрации

    Главная страница