The title of the chapter, “Love as a Possibility for the Individual,” had me hopeful that Niebuhr was going to finally give us something to latch on to, perhaps a method of implementing the impossible ideal of love into a fallen and sinful world. Unfortunately, I came away from reading and thinking about this chapter unsure about the implied meaning of the title. Is Niebuhr implying that love is indeed a possibility for the individual, and subsequently describing how, or is he merely addressing the issue of whether or not it is possible? Let us see which one of these two possibilities is indeed the correct one.
First, I want to use a somewhat divergent yet ultimately beneficial (hopefully) test case for understanding Niebuhr. I want to take one of the current issues of our time and test it within Niebuhr’s scheme, or at least how I understand Niebuhr’s scheme. Lets use the example of the use of torture. By all regards, torture is perhaps one of the most inhumane and despicable things that can be done by one individual to another. Its very definition illuminates this – torture, as defined by the UN Convention Against Torture, is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person…” It should be noted that use of torture is illegal by international law, is considered to be a violation of basic human rights, is unacceptable according to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is in direct violation of the Third and Fourth Geneva Con...
... middle of paper ...
... the power of sin that Niebuhr conveys goes deeper than he admits, to the extent that even in committing sin, the individual may attempt to justify such sin as not being sin, thereby perpetuating a cycle of self-justification and not really providing any rationale for choosing to live toward the transcendental of love over living toward self-interest. Niebuhr’s scheme, when taken to its logical conclusion, gives the power of sin the last word over the power and grace of Christ.
1. Time to be Niebuhr: do you think he would justify the use of torture in its supposed power to extract information even though it is not ideal? If so, do you think he would call for repentance and contrition in its use?
2. Do you think that Niebuhr has set up a scheme that privileges, whether intentionally or not, the power of sin over the transformative power of grace? Why or why not?
Niebuhr helped King gain a better understand of how groups of people behaved, their motives, and that there is a connection between power and morality. In King’s Letters from Birmingham Jail he references Niebuhr stating, “Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals” (King, 1963, “Letters to”, para 10). Here King is trying to show the clergymen that a group it is hard for them to see their wrongdoing or selfishness. As Niebuhr says, groups are selfish in nature and will never just willingly give up their power, something must be done to stand against them. This point is proved when the clergymen tell King he should have waited and say this
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
“Theology is the esoteric thought of the Church.” (WR 15) What is meant by this is that theology is a part of the Church that is very mysterious and confusing to most laymen. Rauschenbusch has introduced many new ideas into the theological point of view. Rauschenbusch tries to explain that the social gospel is here to help people pull more from theology than just jargon that they don’t understand. One of Rauschenbuch’s main points throughout his book A Theology for the Social Gospel is that man uses the thought of Adam being responsible for original sin and therefore everyone is born into sin. Jonathan Kozol, the author of Amazing Grace, went to the impoverished city of Mott Haven to observe the motivation of the citizens amidst a town where sin is around every street corner. He examined the meaning of life and the little opportunity the citizens of Mott Haven had to escape their unfortunate circumstances. Through Walter Rauschenbusch’s A Theology for the Social Gospel one can find the answers to the questions of sin and the heavy presence of sin. The excuse of using Adam as a reason to rid men of their responsibilities is one of the biggest mistakes theologians make, but Rauschenbusch has tried to set things straight by pointing out that those sinful behaviors are learned through your lifestyle and surroundings.
Niebuhr indicated his overriding interest in what has been called theological anthropology, a concern with the nature of man as a contact point for religion and society, in such major works as Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932), Interpretation of
In philosophy “Nihilism” is a position of radical skepticism. It is the belief that all values are baseless and nothing is known. The word “Nihilism” itself conveys a sense of abolishing or destroying (IEP). Nietzsche’s work and writings are mostly associated with nihilism in general, and moral nihilism especially. Moral nihilism questions the reality and the foundation of moral values. Nietzsche supported his view on morality by many arguments and discussions on the true nature of our inner self. Through my paper on Moral Nihilism, I will explain 5 major arguments and then try to construct a deductive argument for each, relying on Nietzsche’s book II “Daybreak”.
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
of torture as necessary and important in order to safeguard the lives of the many innocents
Torture (Latin torquere, “to twist”), in law, infliction of severe bodily pain either as punishment, or to compel a person to confess to a crime, or to give evidence in a judicial proceeding. Among primitive peoples, torture has been used as a means of ordeal and to punish captured enemies. Examination by torture, often called the “question,” has been used in many countries as a judicial method. It involves using instruments to extort evidence from unwilling witnesses.
Applebaum believes that torture should not be used as a means of gaining information from suspects. Applebaum's opinion is supported through details that the practice has not been proven optimally successful. After debating the topic, I have deliberated on agreeing with Applebaum's stance towards the torture policy. I personally agree with the thought to discontinue the practice of torture as a means of acquiring intel. I find it unacceptable that under the Bush Administration, the President decided prisoners to be considered exceptions to the Geneva Convention. As far as moral and ethical consideration, I do not believe that it is anyone's right to harm anyone else, especially if the tactic is not proven successful. After concluding an interview with Academic, Darius Rejali, Applebaum inserted that he had “recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.” There are alternative...
Within mainstream society it seems as if there is not a great deal of emphasis on the contributions made by theologians in society, as well as contributions by theologians to religious thought. Particularly in Christendom, ecclesiastical assemblies are so consumed with vain ideas of worship, and content on hearing biblical messages that capitulate to their personal desires, that theological studies are often neglected. Yet the contributions theologians have made in society, and the impact these contributions have had on religious assemblies have been pivotal in guiding religious discourse on subjects such as ethics, morality, and social transformation. It is for this reason, that in this essay an attempt will be made to analyze three essays from three world-renowned theologians of the 20th century. The theologians are Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Walter Wink, all of which have produced the essays used for this analysis, and have written works that have completely challenged status quo religion, and changed the landscape of Christendom forever.
Exegesis and Critique of Nietzsche’s Conception of Guilt In The Second Essay of On the Genealogy of Morality
Deneff thinks that one problem with the theology of struggling with sin throughout life as Keswick though is that it can lead to a person redefining their own sin as venial or unserious, or they can simply begin tolerating it in their own life. We must focus on love, neither minimizing sin nor obsessing over it, and then we will be holy. Part of our problem with sin comes from the dichotomy we have made between the brain and the body. We take one seriously and the other not. However, Luther pointed out that sin always begins with thinking wrongly about God. So we must transform our minds with knowledge of God's word. The problem here is that there are high rates of illiteracy around the world and sermons often ignore the Bible. The solution is for people to devote themselves to the scriptures entirely. We must seek entire sanctification, but we cannot determine when it will happen. All we can do is devote ourselves to studying the Bible, learning, gathering in church, spending time alone with God, learning about past Christians, praying more, pair with other Christians, take scripture literally and stay alert. Finally, Deneff moves into a listing of ways to know if one is
In order to assess the morality of torture, one needs to define it. According to the Tokyo Declaration of 1975 torture is “the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession or for any other reason.” This definition’s generality severely limits harmless interrogations by police. The United Nations changed the definition to include severe physical suffering, deliberate intentions, and also added that the action cannot be part of a lawful sanction. The US later revised the definition “to include only the most extreme pain” in 200...
Thus, because she perceives grace as the central need of human experience and redemption as the essential aim of life itself, she also insists on the reality of sin and the inevitability of judgment. Unlike many modernists who complain that God has turned His back on the world, she contends that it is man who now shuns God (35).
In conclusion, the convention against torture, has brought many people together, and has informed many people of the horrible tortures which go on everywhere from the US to Syria. It has tried to set fine lines which prohibit torture under all circumstances. However, since there is no governing body over countries, it remains difficult to enforce the human right standards sought after by the Convention against torture. The convention has therefore done a good job at identifying the torturers. This has in turn lessened the amount of those persecuted. It will remain a gradual process to eliminate torture from all countries, but nevertheless a necessity, in the quest for universal human rights. Torture will continue until all countries decide for themselves, and not from a third party convention that freedom from torture is a human right everyone deserves.