Volume 40, Issue 1

The use and development of technic always presuposes- as every human interaction does- at least implicitely as set of leading concepts conceming the essense and destiny of human life and the good order of society. This study analyses and explains out of a christian perspective the concepts of technic, technical damages, technical risks, developes principals for the treatment of such risks and finally tries to evaluate the nuclear energy technic

At the present time Karl Barths criticism of modernity is certainly a decisive subject of Protestant ethics. The ethical theory of Trutz Rendtorff on the other hand advises a change to the notion of critical modernity. The author regards on both sides tendencies, which Iead to a new modell of an ethic of reponsibility in the context of pluralistic societies.

Since relevant changes in German constitutionallaw concerning the guaranteed right of territorial asylum for political refugees have taken place, a widespread public debate on interpretation and institutional shaping of this fundamental human right can be registered. As a valid part in this debate, efforts from within the Church have been made to instaU a compensation for the diagnosed loss of lawfullness and to point out the present deficiency of the composed constitutional right, fixed in the new article 16 a of the Grundgesetz. These efforts, manifested in the specific form of sanctuary, put on the agenda the general question of the relevance of christian conscience within the public context.Reminding the protestant tradition of the concept of conscience and confronting it with the philosophical concept of recognition, it can be said that from a christian point of view, the engagement in keeping fundamental human rights established, is a constituent part both of christian self-understanding and meaningful existence in society.

The author examines the religious-political slogan »Option für die Armen« in patterns of oeconomic questions. In his view this slogan doesn't make any sense. Along with the autor offers reflections concerning practical competence of Christian ethics in modern societies.

In the context of the present debate on brain-death, the author explains how no criterion of death, which is valid once and for all, can be deduced from the Christian understanding of death and resurrection. Nevertheless, a number of anthropological criteria can be identified which could serve as a social-ethical orientation: The interaction of body and soul should not be understood monistically in the sense of a vitalistic or mechanistic concept of life. Institutions and individuals should allow for social comittment and solidarity during the process of dying in order to work against cultural fragmentation and isolation.

The author defends the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. A characteristic feature of passive euthanasia is that it preserves the situation of waiting for death. Active euthanasia is characterised by the fact that it terminates this situation or anticipates its occurrence in a phase when death has not yet announced itself. Provided the situation of waiting for death is preserved, passive euthanasia may very weil include actively life-shortening measures such as dehydration. The situation of waiting for death has primarily a ritual significance. It has the effect of leaving the participants with the consciousness that death as a definitive separation from a person was fate and not an act for which responsibility must be tak:en. This consciousness is important for the integrity of the personal relation to the deceased. Active euthanasia can therefore be considered only in extreme situations which leave no alternative. The author criticises the fact that the ritual aspect of medical action receives too little consideration in the discussion on euthanasia. Finally, conclusions relating to theological ethics are drawn.

The universal applicability of human rights outside the circle of European culture is not only a subject of political controversy, but a challenge to political and moral theory, too. The contribution argues with three types of relativistic criticism of human rihgts' universality: ethical particularism, political realism, and cultural contextualism. Defending the intercultural validity of the human rights' concept, the author pleads for a threefold distincion: between the right and the good, between basic and derivative rights, between penultimate reasons of human rights and ultimate foundations to them.

The author reflects upon the tension between market-economy and modern welfare-state. Against this background he enters into the question on the relation between social ethics and sociological systemtheory. In bis essay the author promotes a twofold perspective: in a critical sensehe examines about the inner normativity of the sociological theory; in a constructive way he makes an normative use of the sociological view. Only in this twofold senseit is possible to discover and develop institutional arrangements, which not only result from the logic of economic rationality but give a link to creative and individual responsibility

Over the years the consulting chambers of the EKiD deliberate in recommendations about the reform upon the system of social securitiy in modern welfare state. In the last months the Social Chamber of the EKiD draw up proposals and results of the discussion; the chamber presents a set of thesises to the Council of the EKiD. The essay gives survey of the present result of the decisions. The intention is to promote the reform and consolidation of the social state and to keep off the strategies which aim at a destruction of social security.

The essay starts with a strong thesis: the Iimits of labour-society force to renunciation of the aitn at full employment. Instead of this the relation between job-employment and other forms of work and activities have be rearranged. The new arrangement needs a new concept of social basis-security: a new form of citizen-income. The author unfolds a set of proposals to explain his concept.

»Social Clauses« in international trade policy and law are appointments for a set of minimal standards, which are to be respected in international trade; they are social rules which have to be established in the lntemational-Economy-Order. The author presents this concept and discusses criteria in the horizon of economy-ethics about the valuation of Social Clauses.

The article deals with the crisis of the German welfare system. Protestant churches are challenged by this crisis. Six challenges are discussed: (a) Recognize facts. One fact is, that the economies of countfies like Germany cannot be separated from the trend of economic globalization. It is every country's position in global economic competition which determines the possible Ievel of its national welfare. A secend fact is, that the present old-age insurance system cannot be maintained. The third fact mentioned is the inconsistency of the system of social security. (b) Becoming open for economic thinking: Solidarity is not possible against but only in conformity with economic rationality. (c) Understand the worldwide dimension of solidarity: lt is exactly economic globalization which promotes worldwide solidarity (the growth of textile industry in Bangladesh is taken as an example). (d) Promote selfresponsibility: Those who are able to help themselves should do so more than before so that assistance for the helpless can be maintained. (e) Stimulate innovations in the field of social policy: An example is the negative income tax. (f) Protect the needy: This is indispensable, and it corresponds not only to christian convictions but also to the enlightened self-interest of a secular society.

The article gives a tentative interpretation of the history of the Churches in Germany starting 1945 to 1989. Crucial points are the relations oftheGerman Churches to questions of modern pluralism, to questions of peace and war and to questions of the transformation of Churchstructures. Common points are mentioned between the Churches of the older FRG and the former GDR-Churches just so differences between them.

To answer the question about the Christian foundation of the law, we first have to look for the foundation of the law in general. The reason why we follow the law voluntarily is not the law and its legal sanctions, but our religion or philosophy of life. »Grundwerte« (basic values) or human rights offer no alternative foundation. Either they are part of the law - and not its foundation, or they are a particular philosophy of life beside others. The law of a pluralistic state that guarantees freedom of religion and belief, and, consequently, is religiously and ideologically neutral, cannot be based on a particular philosophy of life, religion, or denomination. Thus, this law has to be »right« in the eyes of every religious community living in this state. It is, therefore, not a Christian law with respect to its foundation, but the Christians have been leaving their mark on its contents.