Death and the Other: The Origin of Ethical Responsibility

Abstract
What is the origin of ethical responsibility? What gives us our ability to respond? An ethical response involves responding to myself: I answer the call of my conscience. It also involves answering to the Other: I respond to the appeal of my neighbor. Is one form of response prior to the other? Contemporary thinking about these questions has been largely taken up by the debate between Levinas and Heidegger. Responsibility, according to Heidegger, begins with our concern for our being.1 The “call of conscience” originates in our responsibility for what we are. By contrast, Levinas sees this “call” as beginning, not with ourselves, but with our neighbor. Its origin is “the face of the other.” So framed, the debate can be expressed in the opposition: self-responsibility against responsibility for the other.2 My purpose in what follows is to establish two claims. The first is that behind this opposition, there is a fundamental agreement concerning the origin of our ethical obligations. Both philosophers hold that ethical responsibility ultimately springs from our encounter with death. Their real quarrel concerns its location. Where do we first confront death? Is the “first death” our own or that of the other person? Do I confront death in the anxiety I have over my own demise or does it make its primary appearance in what Levinas calls “the face as the very mortality of the other person”?3 My second claim is that, whichever we choose, we cannot really base ethical responsibility on this encounter. This is because death for both philosophers is nontransferable and, hence, ultimately isolating. Furthermore, to face it is a traumatic experience. A traumatised self, however, cannot act. It can only flee. Given this, the response death actually provokes is avoidance. To adequately ground ethical responsibility, we must, I conclude, turn from seeking its basis in death understood in terms of absence and passivity. We must rethink this ground in terms of life taken as presence and affectivity. §1..
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index Translate to english
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,978
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
A. T. Nuyen (2000). Levinas and the Euthanasia Debate. Journal of Religious Ethics 28 (1):119 - 135.
R. G. Frey (2005). Intending and Causing. Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):465 - 474.
Sara E. Roberts (2000). Rethinking Justice. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 7 (1):5-12.
Marina Solodkaya (2008). A Time as the Basis of the New Paradigm of Responsibility. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 50:1011-1018.
Richard A. Cohen (2006). Levinas: Thinking Least About Death: Contra Heidegger. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 60 (1/3):21 - 39.
Shelly Kagan (2012). Death. Yale University Press.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-12-22

Total downloads

14 ( #113,646 of 1,100,863 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #289,727 of 1,100,863 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.