An analysis of Karl Barth's theological anthropology as a basis for an ethic of social justice and human rights, with application to the case of apartheid in South Africa
The purpose of this thesis will be to explore some aspects of Barth's theological anthropology in an attempt to show that Barth's concept of the neighbour as ethical criterion is a basis for perceiving and seeking the good of human life. The attempt will be to demonstrate that Barth's construct of neighbour as ethical criterion can be understood in terms of his theological anthropology. That is, through fellow-humanity as the basic form of humanity, the command of God to ~humanise~, as the basis for ethical responsibility can be heard in a universal and public sense as that which determines the basis for moral reason. It is true, according to Barth, that the motivations for moral decisions and moral actions cannot be based on formal, universal moral principles. But what is argued here is that on the material level the content of the moral agenda as well as the consequence of moral action can be a matter of common discussion and action between Christian and non-Christian when the issue of human rights is at stake. I will argue against the critics who claim that Barth's theological ethics are sectarian and not applicable to universal moral standards of conduct. I will show that these critics misunderstand Barth
James, William M.
Apartheid
An analysis of Karl Barth's theological anthropology as a basis for an ethic of social justice and human rights, with application to the case of apartheid in South Africa. The purpose of this thesis will be to explore some aspects of Barth's theological anthropology in an attempt to show that Barth's concept of the neighbour as ethical criterion is a basis for perceiving and seeking the good of human life. The attempt will be to demonstrate that Barth's construct of neighbour as ethical criterion can be understood in terms of his theological anthropology. That is, through fellow-humanity as the basic form of humanity, the command of God to ~humanise~, as the basis for ethical responsibility can be heard in a universal and public sense as that which determines the basis for moral reason. It is true, according to Barth, that the motivations for moral decisions and moral actions cannot be based on formal, universal moral principles. But what is argued here is that on the material level the content of the moral agenda as well as the consequence of moral action can be a matter of common discussion and action between Christian and non-Christian when the issue of human rights is at stake. I will argue against the critics who claim that Barth's theological ethics are sectarian and not applicable to universal moral standards of conduct. I will show that these critics misunderstand Barth
analysis karl_barth theological_anthropology basis ethic social_justice human_right application case apartheid south_africa purpose_explore aspect barth theological_anthropology attempt_show barth concept neighbour ethical criterion basis perceive seek good human_life attempt barth construct neighbour ethical criterion understood_term theological_anthropology fellow humanity basic form humanity command god basis ethical responsibility heard universal public sense determine basis moral_reason true accord barth motivation moral decision moral action base formal universal moral_principle argue material level content moral agenda well consequence moral action matter common discussion action christian non_christian issue human_right stake argue critic claim barth theological ethic sectarian applicable universal moral standard conduct show critic misunderstand barth