Volume 45, Issue 1

»Diakoniewissenschaft« was determined until now in priority by an apologetic interest. Its purposewas before all to demoostrate church's diakonia as an integral component of church actingasweil as theological science. The historic orientation of the previous research corresponded to that. In cantrast to this, the above paper pleads to discard this apologetic schema. It defines »Diakoniewissenschaft« as »applied theology«, as an independent kind of theological science in the different fields of practice. The special feature of the »Diakoniewissenschaft« is the scientific self-reflection of all diaconal activities. It points out religious as weil as theological motives with determine the diaconal practice in the present and the corresponding targets in the future. The articel outlines this type of »diakoniewissenschaftlichen< research at two examples, at the question of the medical ethics and the ekklesiological orientation.

The article claims that in the current situation there is no need for the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) to create a new ethics of peace. Christian ethics of peace neither tends to bellicism nor to pacifism. Learned by the history of church, the EKD also rejects the traditional concepts of the holy or the just war. War can never be holy, not even just, but in certain situations warfare may be unavoidable or necessary. Cases of self-defense or the so-called humanitarian interventions are examples for the latter. As the war in Kosovo shows, the modern Christi an ethics of a just peace ( or a peace in justice) needs clear and distinct criteria in order to decide whether in a certain situation a humanitarian intervention is necessary or not.

Electronic commerce has become an important factor in present-day business. The reflection ofbusiness ethics asks four questions: - To what extent does e-commerce improve the ethical quality of decision making and performing in the sphere of commerce? - Does e-commerce promote the »reason« for business? - Does e-commerce reinforce or endanger the market's functional value principles? -Will e-commerce side-Iine or establish the ethical reflexivity of business? The present considerations will not answer definitively the above questions. Although e-commerce comprises dangers as weil as opportunities relative to those questions, it is basic to hold fast at the primacy ofpolitics and consequently demand the responsibility from business toward the »needs oflife«.

Since 1990 the Conference of Catholic Bishops in Germany (DBK) and the Evangelical Churches in Germany (EKD) - sometimes in cooperation with the »Council of Christian Churches in Germany« (ACK)- are constantly publishing so-called »joint Statements« (»Gemeinsame Texte«) concerning ethical issues. Statements are either concentrated on bioethical or on socialethical topics. It is clearly visible that documents discussing matters of bioethics refer to one basic argument when analysing present situations: »Life as gift and life endangered«, a thought first presented in the common 1989-document >>Gott ist ein Freund des Lebens. Herausforderungen und Aufgaben beim Schutz des Lebens« ( God- a friend of life. Challenges and tasks of life protection). In comparison common statements concerning matters of social ethics however do not show a criterion of a precisely similar kind. This is due to the wide range of subjects in discussion creating a wide range ofhighly differentiated descriptions analysing today's situation in question. Both types of Statements however fundamentally underline the Christian view of person as essential to ethical argument. Differentiation in analysis of present-day social situation Ieads to differentiation of ethical instruments. In consequence some suggestions are to be considered: clarification of who precisely is the addressee of future joint statements, clarification of how to use and create possibilities of mass media-communication, clarification of clearly Christian intentions within the realms in discussion.

In moral ethics the bible is often used selectively, providing examples of ideal behaviour or serving as a source of motivation. Thus, strictly speaking, one could do without the bible. However, in rediscovering the bible as a canon of a community of faith and practice andin working out a new approach (»canonical approach«), one can redefine the bible's role in ethics: (1) A canonical contextualization is absolutely required for a thorough reference to the bible. (2) The bible presents a complex (»many-voiced«) concept of the world according to God's will, in which God's people holds a key position. (3) The bible provides fundamental ideas for a counter-real interpretation of the world ( openness of the future; reversal of powers).

During the past years the project of ecumenical social ethics was initiated without the burden of dogmatic questions. Jointpositions in questionsrelevant to society could be formulated without a prior consensus in fundamental controversial theological issues. Consequently the question arises whether the wished and aspired joint proclamation of social ethics of the churches really rests on a consensus in fundamental issues of the Christian faith or whether public pressure and the changed normative situation cover up differences which could prove themselves to be exclusive. There are agreements in three areas: in the understanding ofthe Gospel as foundational, in the biblical teaching ofman being created in the image of God as a fundamental article of theological anthropology and in a joint proclamation of the churches as an ecumenical task. Returning to a biblical perspective a consensus in the ethical demands of the Gospel andin the universal claim of biblical ethics can be established which does not exclude but rather include the differences between the traditional denaminational positions. This consensus can be called a »differentiated consensus« similar to the case of the »Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification«. Thus ecumenical social ethics has been relieved from the pressure of having to fully agree in language, form and contents in all conceivable questions.

The joint declarations of the Protestant and Catholic Churches concerning ethical questions express the ecumenical progress achieved so far. However, the present ecumenical tension is obvious in issues conceming the understanding of the church, doctrine, and freedom of conscience. The Catholic Church has recently laid a greater emphasis on the hierarchical, authoritative and binding character of ecclesiastical doctrine in moral issues as weiL For the Protestant Church and theology however freedom of conscience is fundamental. In spite of these theological differences the significance of joint declarations for the future must be emphasized. The arguments of Catholic and Protestant ethics can complement each other in joint declarations. The joint declarations reach !arger parts of today's society than texts worded by only one Church.

The justification of non-therapeutic research on incapacitated persons isastill unsolved problem, because in this situation, both legitimising factors of research - informed consent and therapeutic benefit - are absent and the question arises as to whether such research is morally justifiable at all. The paperwill ask if there could be arguments for such research. One argument could be that under certain circumstances, an institutionally decreed global renunciation of any type of research on this group of persons could also be illegitimate. Not doing research can do injury to the Principles of Justice because in this manner the needs of a particular group may unjustifiably be ignored. This would aggravate the disadvantaged position of this group in a groundless manner and, in particular, would deprive its members of the basis of self respect Precisely in view of this aspect of Justice non-therapeutic studies on decisionally impaired persans must also be permitted in order to ensure the preservation of basic social goods in regard to these persons.

The systematic development of the concept of justice occurs on the basis of human rights. First, this human rights basis is examined in terms of theories of conflict and cooperation. Furthermore, it is investigated whether wisdom suffices as the basis of human rights or whether moral norms are necessary. With the distinguishing of human rights into negative, active and positive rights, distinctions result with respect to the concept of justice, leading to the concepts of a state under the rule of law, democracy and the welfare state, and explaining the concept of socialjustice through exchange, participation, distribution, and procedural faimess. Overcoming the tension between formal rights of freedom and social rights, reference is made to the principles of subsidiarity and democracy. Finally, issues arising with respect to the theory of justice are considered in relation to the problern of globalisation.

We show when and how the principles of efficiency and equality might come together and develop a fairness compensation test. A simple graphical analysis is applied. If the faimess compensation test fails, efficiency and justice cannot be fully connected and a wedge between econornic and faimess principles remains. We discuss how important this wedge might be and argue that there does not exist a principle of systematic antinomy between efficiency and faimess.

Despite a long tradition of dealing with problems of optimal intergenerational allocation, economists are rarely integrated into debates about strategies to cope with decisions with long-term effects. Cost-benefitanalyses as typical economic methods to evaluate long-term investment strategies mostly neglect the need for basic normative decisions, e.g. about the definition of future generations and their interests. This paper presents first steps of an institutional economics' framework to overcorne these shortcornings and to improve the opportunities of an integrated interdisciplinary approach.

Facing the impending rationing in health care and consequently necessary priorisation, this article pleads for primarily following the capability approach of justice. The decent minimum of just health care is onentated to the capability of leading a personally responsible life, functioning in its respective society. The capability approach is on the one band semantically justified by considering different ideas of humankind; on the other band, its capability of application is structurally checked by a network of further criteria conceming justice.

Academic resistance in Nazi-Germany between 1941 and 1944 gives a rare example of an exceptional cooperation between scholars of economics, law, history an Protestant theology. Leading representatives of the ordo-liberal Freiburg school of eceonomics (W. Eucken, F. Böhm and others) joined forces with theologians to develop concepts for political, social and economic life in post-war Germany by ordinance of >Bekennende Kirche< represented by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This outstanding example of interdisciplinary thinking proved tobe influential in founding Germany's Social Market System. It stands as a successful, yet singular, way of dialogue between theology and economics.

John Rawls' conception of a reasonable pluralism proceeds on the epistemological assumption that it is not possible to set up one specific notion of justice attached to certain beliefs about the nature ofthe person, the purpose and the goal of human life. The liberal position insists on the principle of moral justification, according to which no norm is legitimate unless it can be accepted in principle by all affected persons. According to this view, it is recommended, in public debates where the legitimacy of laws and state actions is being disputed, citizens should confine themselves to the use of religious arguments for which independent, secular reasons can be given. This conception has elicited an array of critical responses from authors of a religious persuasion. Critics point above all to the unequal terms of entry to public debates. But it can be shown in termsofamodest foundationalist epistemology that the required translation of religious beliefs in secular reasons is not an unfair and unjustified charge. Personally justified basic beliefs can be tested in intersubjective and public procedures of reasoning without requiring believers to sacrifice their religious or confessional identity.

The author examines three models of protestant ethics (St. Hauerwas, E. Herms, J. Fischer) asking the following questions: how do they conceive the distinctive character of the christian ethos, how do they understand the relationship between christian ethos and public sphere and are they capable of refusing the liberal demand for self-restriction. All of these models can be interpreted as attempts to describe the distinctive feature of the christian ethos as something which is an essential element all moralities have in common. Although the autor regards the intuist model as the most plausible, he argues that it is not able to reject the liberal demand for self-restriction. Therefore, this challenge can be met only by demonstrating that the restriction of religious and other comprehensive doctrines does not necessarily follow from the liberal principle of legitimacy. The author outlines how this can done be done.

The aim of this article is to analyse and to reconsider the role of theologians in the public sphere, especially within ethic commissions or committees. First, the author discusses origin and structures of the so-called bioethical paradigm. Then, he compares some theoretical models of how this challenge might be met: theological deduction of ethics, autonomy of ethics, and >re-theologisation<. Finally, he proposes four complementary attitudes theologians in ethic committees should adopt: personal or pastoral accompaniment, contradiction, >decentration< or reformulation, and creative reconstruction.