Constructing Ethical Patterns in Times of Globalization.

Aleksi Kuokkanen, Ph.D. (2010) in Theology, the University of Helsinki, is currently a lecturer at Karkku Evangelical College in Finland. He has also studied philosophy, sociology and pedagogics at the University of Helsinki. His earlier published articles concern human rights and Christianity.

Theologians, philosophers, sociologists, and politicians interested in ethics, political philosophy, or the philosophy of religion. Readers interested in the history of ideas or the ideas of Hans Küng or prominent political philosophers today.

"This is the best account available of the fundamental challenges facing anyone who would try to develop a “global ethic”. Koukkanen draws on his extraordinary philosophical resources to illumine not only Kung’s proposals but to also constructively develop an alternative that is both plausible and hopeful."
Prof. Stanley Hauerwas, Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke Divinity School with a joint appointment at the Duke University School of Law.

How can we peacefully coexist in a world full of mutually exclusive moral, political and religious differences? In this probing study Aleksi Kuokkanen argues for a postliberal global ethics that takes Hans Küng’s project Weltethos an important step further. Recourse to a common humanum and a basic set of allegedly universal moral principles is not enough.
More than a quest for common ground we need an awareness of defensible differences in a common world. The author argues for a ‚balanced inclusivism’ that acknowledges the exclusivity of incompatible world-views without denying the common humanity of those who hold them. In the Lutheran tradition of distinguishing between ‚person’ and ‚work’ he defends the principle of loving one’s ideological enemies in a ‚kenotic’
renouncement of revenge and violence and, at the same time, resists the attempt of liberal and postmodern projects to override or play down the incompatibility of mutually exclusive life orientations. Ideological differences are there to stay. What we need is a way of living together peacefully with those whose views are incompatible with ours without giving up on our convictions or forcing them upon others. This book is an important contribution to a debate that will continue for a long time.
Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Ingolf U. Dalferth, Director of the Institute of Hermeneutics and Philosophy of Religion at the University of Zürich and Danforth Professor of Philosophy of Religion at Claremont Graduate University.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
1. Declaration of Global Ethic in Chicago
2. Hans Küng
ABOUT THIS STUDY
1. The Main Task
2. Structure and Methods

II THE LIBERAL POTENTIAL OF GLOBAL ETHICS
ETHICS AND RELIGIOUS FAITH
1. Küng’s Basic Argument
2. The Rational Method: From Kant to Schleiermacher
3. The Positive method: From Hegel to Heidegger to Jaspers
4. Exclusivism
THE NATURE OF GLOBAL ETHICS
1. The Rational Method: Kant Against Consequentialism
Consequentialism and Politics
Kant Against Consequentialism
2. The Positive Method: Hegel Against Consequentialism
Consequentialism and Sociology
Hegel Against Consequentialism
THE CONTENT OF GLOBAL ETHICS
1. The Rational Method: From Kant to Communitarian Liberalism
From Kant to Rawls’s Theory of Justice
From Pogge’s Cosmopolitanism to Rawls’s Political Liberalism
From Habermas’s Discourse Ethics to Communitarian Liberalism
2. The Positive Method: From Hegel to Postmodernism
From Hegel to Dewey’s Pragmatism
From Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach to Walzer’s Multiculturalism
From Gray’s Value Pluralism to Postmodernism

III THE POSTLIBERAL POTENTIAL OF GLOBAL ETHICS
THE RATIONAL METHOD: THE ARISTOTELIAN LINE
1. MacIntyre and Sandel as Postliberalists
2. From Homer to Aquinas
3. Tradition-Constitutive Rationality
THE POSITIVE METHOD: THE AUGUSTINIAN LINE
1. Transcendental Thomism and Dialectical Theology
2. Schelling
3. Positive and/or Rational Method?
THE POSTLIBERAL APPROACH AND EXCLUSIVISM
ENCOUNTERING EXCLUSIVE DIFFERENCE: A STARTING POINT FOR DIALOGUE

IV CONCLUDING REMARKS

REFERENCES