scholarly journals ’n Beoordeling van die Skrifberoep ten opsigte van die doodstraf

2012 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
De Wet Saaiman
Keyword(s):  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Ethical Problem ◽  
Christian Ethics ◽  
Simple Interpretation ◽  
Intimate Knowledge

In die lig van die Christelike etiek is ’n beroep op die Skrif ’n sine qua non waar ’n standpunt in verband met ’n etiese vraagstuk ingeneem word. Met ’n beroep op die Skrif is die probleem ongelukkig nie sonder meer opgelos nie. Die verskillende vertolkings van die Skrif het tot gevolg dat etici met teenoorgestelde standpunte hul op dieselfde Skrifgedeeltes beroep. Dit is egter nie voldoende om slegs ’n goeie uiteensetting van vertrekpunte of selfs hermeneutiese reëls te gee nie. Die Christelike etikus moet ’n grondige kennis van die werklikheid hê – etiek word eenvoudig nie in ’n vakuum beoefen nie. In hierdie artikel is ’n beoordeling gedoen van die Skrifberoep ten opsigte van die doodstraf. In die artikel is aangetoon dat die Skrif ten spyte van goeie hermeneutiese vertrekpunte gemanipuleer kan word om die etikus se eie voorveronderstelling te weerspieël.An adjudication of the use of Scripture regarding capital punishment. The use (recall) of Scripture is, in light of Christian ethics, a sine qua non when a position with regard to an ethical problem is assumed. A simple interpretation of Scripture does not necessarily settle the problem. Different interpretations of Scripture result in a difference of opinions even when the same Scriptural texts are used. It is therefore simply not sufficient to note a fair explanation of departure points or hermeneutical principles. The Christian ethicist should have an intimate knowledge of reality – ethics is not practised in a vacuum. In this article an adjudication of the use or interpretation of Scripture in the light of capital punishment was conducted. In this article it was shown that Scripture is most often misused despite of fair hermeneutical principles only to reflect the ethicist own preconceived ideas.

scholarly journals Payback, Forgiveness, Accountability: Exercising Responsible Agency in the Midst of Structured Racial Harm

Religions ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 528
Author(s):  
Michael P. Jaycox
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Community Organizing ◽  
Ethical Problem ◽  
Political Conflict ◽  
Christian Ethics ◽  
Moral Ideal ◽  
Moral Accountability

In a context of political conflict, the practice of vengeance, the paying back of harm in exchange for harm suffered, is obviously an ethical problem. The practice of forgiveness is equally though differently problematic when applied to political conflict despite the fact that it is a moral ideal. A third approach, the practice of moral accountability, is more ethically justifiable, yet it remains unclear what it is conceptually and what it would involve practically in a particular context. In this essay, the author develops a conceptual framework for moral accountability, grounded in a broader understanding of justice as responsibility to conflictual and unchosen relationships. Drawing on contemporary sources in Christian ethics, as well as insights from anti-racism community organizing, the author argues that practices of moral accountability restructure the pattern of these relationships, such that perpetrators and guilty bystanders are more likely to assume, rather than avoid, responsibility for causing structured racial harm.

Hippocrates' Oath and Asclepius' Snake

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.A. Cavanaugh
Keyword(s):  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Medical Ethic ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Ethical Problem ◽  
Sexual Exploitation ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Greek Myth ◽  
Medical Experience ◽  
Iatrogenic Harm

Hippocrates’ Oath and Asclepius’ Snake: The Birth of the Medical Profession articulates the Oath as establishing the medical profession—a practice incorporating an internal, uniquely medical ethic that particularly prohibits doctors from killing. In its most basic and least controvertible form, this ethic mandates that physicians try to help while not trying to harm the sick. Relying on Greek myth, drama, and medical experience (e.g., homeopathy), the book shows how this medical code arises from reflection on the most vexing medical-ethical problem: iatrogenic harm, injury caused by a physician. The book argues that deliberate iatrogenic harm—especially the harm of a doctor choosing to kill (physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, abortion, and involvement in capital punishment)—amounts to an abandonment of medicine as an exclusively therapeutic profession. Since electively killing a patient always injures (even when done at the patient’s request), the Oath excludes killing (along with other salient harms such as sexual exploitation and the violation of patient confidentiality) from medicine as a profession. The work argues that medicine as a profession necessarily involves stating before others what one stands for: the goods one seeks and the bads one seeks to avoid on behalf of the sick. The book considers and rejects the view that medicine is purely a technique lacking its own unique internal ethic. It concludes by noting that medical promising (as found in the White Coat Ceremony by which US medical students matriculate) implicates medical autonomy, which merits respect, including the honoring of professional conscientious objection.

scholarly journals Die koninkryk van God as ’n kontekstueel-paradigmatiese sleutel vir Skrifberoep in die etiek

2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
De Wet Saaiman
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Kingdom Of God ◽  
Christian Ethics ◽  
Specific Context ◽  
Ethical Problems ◽  
Simple Interpretation ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Societal Context ◽  
Point Of Departure

In die lig van die Christelike etiek is ’n beroep op die Skrif ’n sine qua non waar standpunte oor etiese vraagstukke ingeneem word. Deur ’n beroep op die Skrif te doen, is die probleem ongelukkig nie sonder meer opgelos nie. Hierdie artikel toon aan dat die begrip koninkryk van God as tema as ’n hermeneutiese vertrekpunt kan dien in die soeke na antwoorde op etiese vraagstukke. Daar word aangedui dat die koninkryk van God ’n noodsaaklike tema is omdat sekere wetsbepalings en kontekstueel bepaalde beginsels en norme in die voortsetting van die gedagte van die koninkryk van God in die Ou en Nuwe Testament ingebed is. Daar is egter ook sekere voorskrifte binne die teokratiese bestel wat vir die volk Israel in hulle spesifieke konteks gegee is wat nie noodwendig direk in die hedendaagse samelewingskonteks kan en mag toegepas word nie. Die boodskap van die Skrif moet dus op ’n verantwoordelike en geldige wyse gekonstateer word en effektief aan die moderne samelewing oorgedra word.The kingdom of God as a contextual paradigmatic key for using Scripture in ethics. The use of Scripture is, in light of Christian ethics, a sine qua non when positions with regard to ethical problems are assumed. A simple interpretation of Scripture does not necessarily settle the problem. This article shows that the concept kingdom of God as a theme can serve as a hermeneutical point of departure in the search for answers to ethical questions. It is shown that the kingdom of God is a necessary theme due to the fact that certain legal stipulations and contextual based principles and norms are embedded in the idea of the kingdom of God in the Old and New Testament. There are also certain prescriptions within the theocratic system of Israel in its specific context that may not and cannot be directly applied to the modern day societal context. The message of the Bible must thus be established in a responsible and valid way, and communicated effectively to modern day society.

Wars of National Liberation: The Methodology of Christian Ethics II

Worldview ◽  
1966 ◽  
Vol 9 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Theodore R. Weber
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Ethical Problem ◽  
The United States ◽  
Christian Ethics ◽  
Basic Question ◽  
National Liberation ◽  
United States Policy ◽  
National Power ◽  
Morality Of War

The primary ethical problem for United States policy in regard to “wars of national liberation” is that of intervention, not war. To be sure, the morality of war must be faced together with the morality of intervention. But the basic question for the intervention is not whether morally it may use force and take human life, but whether morally it may exercise power where it has no authority. By what right does the United States seek to influence the relationships, structures, and focus of authority of another political entity—or evert of a nonentity in process of becoming an entity?Justifiable intervention is an admissible—although limited—concept except to those persons who reject every unilateral use of national power, and to those who take an absolutistic stand in favor of the principle of non-intervention (and that stand also requires an ethical defense).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document