Director of the School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies. Professor of Religious Studies and of Philosophy.
I have four main (sometimes overlapping) areas of interest: (a) religion and political thought; (b) law and religion (c) Wittgenstein; and (d) the "religious"-"secular" distinction.
Krise und Kritik: Philosophische Analyse und Zeitgeschehen / Crisis and Critique: Philosophical A... more Krise und Kritik: Philosophische Analyse und Zeitgeschehen / Crisis and Critique: Philosophical Analysis and Current Events. 42nd International Wittgenstein Symposium. Kirchberg am Wechsel, Austria. 4-10 August 2019.
So-called democratic states rest upon acts of violence and exclusion which cannot themselves be justified democratically. Yet, much contemporary political theory takes these configurations for granted as the context for philosophical reflection. This paper explores some of the spatio-temporal paradoxes of popular sovereignty as conventionally understood – i.e., as the authorization of government through the consent of “the people.” I argue that, instead of treating the borders of popular sovereignty as given, philosophical reflection on political authority would benefit from greater attention to their continual contestation and critique.
Sovereignty, Religion, and Secularism: Interrogating the Foundations of Polity. Ludwig Maximilian... more Sovereignty, Religion, and Secularism: Interrogating the Foundations of Polity. Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich. 11-13 July 2018.
Reexamining Religion, Modernity/ies and Trans Modernity in the Populist Moment Working Group of t... more Reexamining Religion, Modernity/ies and Trans Modernity in the Populist Moment Working Group of the Contending Modernities research initiative. Chicago, 5-6 June 2018.
"Law and Human Rights" panel, Centre for Religion, Conflict, and Globalization, University of Gro... more "Law and Human Rights" panel, Centre for Religion, Conflict, and Globalization, University of Groningen, 14 September 2017
Der Status der Ehre in unserer Gesellschaft ist prekär. Vielen gilt sie als patriarchales und gew... more Der Status der Ehre in unserer Gesellschaft ist prekär. Vielen gilt sie als patriarchales und gewaltproduktives Relikt einer hierarchischen Gesellschaftsordnung, als inkompatibel mit einer demokratischen, auf der gleichen Achtung jedes Einzelnen beruhenden Gesinnung. Die Anerkennung unter Gleichen hat dem Respekt fur die Angehörigen bestimmter Stände, Ämter oder Berufe den Rang abgelaufen, zumindest in ethischer Hinsicht. Heisst das, dass der Ehrbegriff jene universalisierende Transformation nicht geschafft hat, die dem Wurdebegriff seinen Aufstieg zu einem ethisch-rechtlichen Zentralbegriff ermöglicht hat? Ist Ehre nur noch ein Randphänomen, das z.B. im Sport als Ideal der sportsmanship, in der Wissenschaft in der Praxis von Festschriften, bei Klagen zu Ehrverletzungen im Internet oder bei „Ehrenmorden“ in Erscheinung tritt?
In den letzten Jahren sind vor allem in den USA zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Publikationen erschienen, die bestreiten, dass der Ehre in der Moderne der Abschied gegeben wurde und dass ein solcher Abschied überhaupt möglich und wünschbar ist. Sie plädieren dafür, wenigstens bestimmten Formen der Ehre eine höhere Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken, weil ihnen eine zentrale soziale und moralische Bedeutung zukomme.
Die internationale Tagung möchte diesen Impuls aufnehmen und in ethischer, theologisch-anthropologischer und philosophischer Hinsicht kritisch weiterreflektieren. Es referieren namhafte Wissenschaftler aus Theologie, Philosophie, Islamwissenschaft, Jurisprudenz und Politikwissenschaft.
----------------
The status of honor in our society is precarious. To many, it appears to be a patriarchal and violent relic of a hierarchical social order, incompatible with a democratic ethos of equal respect for each individual. Respect among equals is widely regarded as taking precedence over respect for the occupants of specific estates, offices, and professions, at least from an ethical perspective. Does this mean that the concept of honor has failed to achieve the universalizing transformation that has allowed the concept of dignity to become a central ethical and legal concept? Is honor only a marginal phenomenon – e.g., the ideal of sportsmanship in athletic endeavor; the Festschrift in academic life; internet libel lawsuits; or so-called “honor killings”?
In recent years, a body of academic literature has emerged, especially in the U.S., which denies that honor was abandoned in modernity – indeed, that such a rejection would be either possible or desirable. These authors advocate paying greater attention to specific forms of honor which are said to be of central social and moral significance.
This international conference takes up this challenge as an opportunity for critical ethical, theologico-anthropological, and philosophical reflection among leading scholars in the fields of theology, philosophy, Islamic studies, and jurisprudence.
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2017
Time: 18:15 h
Place: University of Zurich, Main Building
Rämistrasse 71... more Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2017 Time: 18:15 h Place: University of Zurich, Main Building Rämistrasse 71, 8001 Zurich Room KOL-G-209
Religion and Human Rights. Robert L. Bernstein International Human Rights Symposium. 23-24 March ... more Religion and Human Rights. Robert L. Bernstein International Human Rights Symposium. 23-24 March 2017. Yale Law School.
Prof. em. Dr. Jean-Luc Nancy (Université de Strasbourg) spricht über die aktuellen gesellschaftli... more Prof. em. Dr. Jean-Luc Nancy (Université de Strasbourg) spricht über die aktuellen gesellschaftlichen und ethischen Herausforderungen der Flüchtlingskrise
North American Wittgenstein Society, American Philosophical Association. 30 March 2016.
The past... more North American Wittgenstein Society, American Philosophical Association. 30 March 2016.
The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in the German jurist and philosopher Carl Schmitt, who defined political sovereignty in relation to the concept of the decision. A growing number of legal and political theorists — sometimes characterized as doing political theology — has argued that decision is an inescapable element of legal interpretation. Drawing on the later Wittgenstein’s so-called “rule-following considerations,” this paper challenges a certain metaphysical picture to which these theorists sometimes appeal, which envisions a necessary gap between law and its application, and a corresponding conception of the self that privileges will over reason.
Krise und Kritik: Philosophische Analyse und Zeitgeschehen / Crisis and Critique: Philosophical A... more Krise und Kritik: Philosophische Analyse und Zeitgeschehen / Crisis and Critique: Philosophical Analysis and Current Events. 42nd International Wittgenstein Symposium. Kirchberg am Wechsel, Austria. 4-10 August 2019.
So-called democratic states rest upon acts of violence and exclusion which cannot themselves be justified democratically. Yet, much contemporary political theory takes these configurations for granted as the context for philosophical reflection. This paper explores some of the spatio-temporal paradoxes of popular sovereignty as conventionally understood – i.e., as the authorization of government through the consent of “the people.” I argue that, instead of treating the borders of popular sovereignty as given, philosophical reflection on political authority would benefit from greater attention to their continual contestation and critique.
Sovereignty, Religion, and Secularism: Interrogating the Foundations of Polity. Ludwig Maximilian... more Sovereignty, Religion, and Secularism: Interrogating the Foundations of Polity. Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich. 11-13 July 2018.
Reexamining Religion, Modernity/ies and Trans Modernity in the Populist Moment Working Group of t... more Reexamining Religion, Modernity/ies and Trans Modernity in the Populist Moment Working Group of the Contending Modernities research initiative. Chicago, 5-6 June 2018.
"Law and Human Rights" panel, Centre for Religion, Conflict, and Globalization, University of Gro... more "Law and Human Rights" panel, Centre for Religion, Conflict, and Globalization, University of Groningen, 14 September 2017
Der Status der Ehre in unserer Gesellschaft ist prekär. Vielen gilt sie als patriarchales und gew... more Der Status der Ehre in unserer Gesellschaft ist prekär. Vielen gilt sie als patriarchales und gewaltproduktives Relikt einer hierarchischen Gesellschaftsordnung, als inkompatibel mit einer demokratischen, auf der gleichen Achtung jedes Einzelnen beruhenden Gesinnung. Die Anerkennung unter Gleichen hat dem Respekt fur die Angehörigen bestimmter Stände, Ämter oder Berufe den Rang abgelaufen, zumindest in ethischer Hinsicht. Heisst das, dass der Ehrbegriff jene universalisierende Transformation nicht geschafft hat, die dem Wurdebegriff seinen Aufstieg zu einem ethisch-rechtlichen Zentralbegriff ermöglicht hat? Ist Ehre nur noch ein Randphänomen, das z.B. im Sport als Ideal der sportsmanship, in der Wissenschaft in der Praxis von Festschriften, bei Klagen zu Ehrverletzungen im Internet oder bei „Ehrenmorden“ in Erscheinung tritt?
In den letzten Jahren sind vor allem in den USA zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Publikationen erschienen, die bestreiten, dass der Ehre in der Moderne der Abschied gegeben wurde und dass ein solcher Abschied überhaupt möglich und wünschbar ist. Sie plädieren dafür, wenigstens bestimmten Formen der Ehre eine höhere Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken, weil ihnen eine zentrale soziale und moralische Bedeutung zukomme.
Die internationale Tagung möchte diesen Impuls aufnehmen und in ethischer, theologisch-anthropologischer und philosophischer Hinsicht kritisch weiterreflektieren. Es referieren namhafte Wissenschaftler aus Theologie, Philosophie, Islamwissenschaft, Jurisprudenz und Politikwissenschaft.
----------------
The status of honor in our society is precarious. To many, it appears to be a patriarchal and violent relic of a hierarchical social order, incompatible with a democratic ethos of equal respect for each individual. Respect among equals is widely regarded as taking precedence over respect for the occupants of specific estates, offices, and professions, at least from an ethical perspective. Does this mean that the concept of honor has failed to achieve the universalizing transformation that has allowed the concept of dignity to become a central ethical and legal concept? Is honor only a marginal phenomenon – e.g., the ideal of sportsmanship in athletic endeavor; the Festschrift in academic life; internet libel lawsuits; or so-called “honor killings”?
In recent years, a body of academic literature has emerged, especially in the U.S., which denies that honor was abandoned in modernity – indeed, that such a rejection would be either possible or desirable. These authors advocate paying greater attention to specific forms of honor which are said to be of central social and moral significance.
This international conference takes up this challenge as an opportunity for critical ethical, theologico-anthropological, and philosophical reflection among leading scholars in the fields of theology, philosophy, Islamic studies, and jurisprudence.
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2017
Time: 18:15 h
Place: University of Zurich, Main Building
Rämistrasse 71... more Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2017 Time: 18:15 h Place: University of Zurich, Main Building Rämistrasse 71, 8001 Zurich Room KOL-G-209
Religion and Human Rights. Robert L. Bernstein International Human Rights Symposium. 23-24 March ... more Religion and Human Rights. Robert L. Bernstein International Human Rights Symposium. 23-24 March 2017. Yale Law School.
Prof. em. Dr. Jean-Luc Nancy (Université de Strasbourg) spricht über die aktuellen gesellschaftli... more Prof. em. Dr. Jean-Luc Nancy (Université de Strasbourg) spricht über die aktuellen gesellschaftlichen und ethischen Herausforderungen der Flüchtlingskrise
North American Wittgenstein Society, American Philosophical Association. 30 March 2016.
The past... more North American Wittgenstein Society, American Philosophical Association. 30 March 2016.
The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in the German jurist and philosopher Carl Schmitt, who defined political sovereignty in relation to the concept of the decision. A growing number of legal and political theorists — sometimes characterized as doing political theology — has argued that decision is an inescapable element of legal interpretation. Drawing on the later Wittgenstein’s so-called “rule-following considerations,” this paper challenges a certain metaphysical picture to which these theorists sometimes appeal, which envisions a necessary gap between law and its application, and a corresponding conception of the self that privileges will over reason.
Long framed in terms of Christian and secularist concerns, the field of philosophy of religion ha... more Long framed in terms of Christian and secularist concerns, the field of philosophy of religion has recently been attempting to expand to include a wider, more diverse variety of religious phenomena. At the same time, a growing body of literature within religious studies has called attention to the historical genealogy and limitations of the category of "religion." If "religion" is itself a modern, secular extrapolation from Christian understandings, disseminated globally through colonial encounter, does the apparently more capacious approach to philosophy of religion simply reproduce the deciencies of the old under the guise of a false universal? The present volume seeks to move the field in the direction of a refexive turn, toward an examination of the philosophical implications of the concept of "religion."
Ehre. Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zu einem prekären Phänomen, 2021
‚Honor‘ is viewed by many as a pre-modern and thus obsolete concept. But if honor is understood i... more ‚Honor‘ is viewed by many as a pre-modern and thus obsolete concept. But if honor is understood in terms of an historically variable relationship of recognition, then it is the case not simply that traditional forms of honor survive in (late-)modern societies. Rather, one can also perceive in modernity transformed modes of honor, in which it is associated with prestige or status, or with the idea of universal human dignity. Moreover, these latter conceptions of honor might provide important resources for the development of a broadly democratic ethos. The contributions in this interdisciplinary volume undertake a critical exploration of the concept and phenomena of 'honor', with an eye to their possible relevance to the present.
What does it mean for ethics to say, as Wittgenstein did, that philosophy “leaves everything as i... more What does it mean for ethics to say, as Wittgenstein did, that philosophy “leaves everything as it is”?
Though clearly absorbed with ethical questions throughout his life and work, Wittgenstein's remarks about the subject do not easily lend themselves to summation or theorizing. Although many moral philosophers cite the influence or inspiration of Wittgenstein, there is little agreement about precisely what it means to do ethics in the light of Wittgenstein.
Ethics after Wittgenstein brings together an international cohort of leading scholars in the field to address this problem. The chapters advance a conception of philosophical ethics characterized by an attention to detail, meaning and importance which itself makes ethical demands on its practitioners. Working in conversation with literature and film, engaging deeply with anthropology and critical theory, and addressing contemporary problems from racialized sexual violence against women to the Islamic State, these contributors reclaim Wittgenstein's legacy as an indispensable resource for contemporary ethics.
Was ist eigentlich theologische Ethik? Durch die Beschäftigung mit konkreten Problemen angewandte... more Was ist eigentlich theologische Ethik? Durch die Beschäftigung mit konkreten Problemen angewandter Ethik gerät die Frage, was theologische Ethik ihrem Wesen nach ist, leicht in den Hintergrund. Die Beiträge, die eine Vortragsreihe zum 50-jährigen Bestehen des Zürcher Instituts für Sozialethik dokumentieren, stellen sich dieser Reflexionsaufgabe. Was macht das Theologische einer theologischen Ethik aus?, fragt etwa Wolfgang Huber, der zurzeit wohl bekannteste protestantische Ethiker im deutschen Sprachraum. Oder: Was sind die spezifischen Konturen evangelischer Ethik? Hat theologisch-ethisches Arbeiten sein eigenes Ethos? Neben Beiträgen namhafter Repräsentantinnen und Repräsentanten evangelischer und katholischer Provenienz (Elisabeth Gräb-Schmidt, Ulrich H. J. Körtner, Eberhard Schockenhoff) enthält der Band auch einen Text des bekannten englischen Philosophen John Cottingham, der die alte Idee, moralische Normen auf Gott als deren Urheber zurückzuführen, in der Auseinandersetzung mit aktuellen Positionen philosophischer Metaethik diskutiert und verteidigt.
Post-Enlightenment philosophy rejects the aspiration to step outside language and practice in ord... more Post-Enlightenment philosophy rejects the aspiration to step outside language and practice in order to view their conformity to reality from “sideways on.” Consequently – it has been argued – we ought to regard ourselves as answerable to one another, rather than to the world or the moral law. But in rejecting the notion of objectivity in favor of a purely epistemic conception of validity, Amesbury contends, we forfeit important resources required for criticizing and reforming our respective societies. In Morality and Social Criticism, Amesbury brings recent developments in Anglo-American philosophy into engagement with dominant currents in contemporary European social theory in order to articulate a pragmatic account of moral criticism. Presented in a lively and accessible style, Morality and Social Criticism moves the debate over critical theory beyond the alternatives provided by discourse ethics and deconstruction by arguing for a conception of moral objectivity that is grounded in the discursive practice of reason exchange.
Acclaim for "Morality and Social Criticism":
"Richard Amesbury has produced an excellent book. . . . Amesbury’s central project is to preserve –- as Rorty’s pragmatism self-admittedly cannot –- the rationality of radical criticism within the spheres of moral, political and religious thought and action. In doing this he finds himself confronting issues that relate quite generally to the nature of rationality and these he takes to be linked inextricably to the philosophy of language and to be fundamentally logical. It is this that gives Amesbury’s book a much wider appeal than that of most books of its size on social philosophy. Its critical momentum is grounded on a conception of rule-following behaviour which gives primacy to normative practices, which in some sense, lie at the roots of human beings’ actions and, thus, of human societies."
-- Guy Stock, University of Dundee, "Philosophical Investigations" 31:4 (2008)
“Amesbury provides a solid reconstruction of recent attempts in continental philosophy to theorize in a nonfoundational way about the status and function of social norms. He takes a middle ground between the strongly universalizing theory of discourse ethics (Habermas) and the rejection of universality represented by deconstruction (Derrida and to some extent Rorty). Norms are thus neither platonically ahistorical nor mere contingent posits. With the help of Robert Brandom's recent pragmatic account of norms, Amesbury argues that they are implicit in practices; the philosophical task is simply to make them explicit. Thus he avoids the regress of norms found in a position he calls ‘regulism.’ But he does think that no ethical reasoning can be done without a backdrop of certain moral commitments about which ‘doubts do not ordinarily arise.’ This is the key assumption of his ‘ordinary realism.’ The hope is that such a realist model of reasoning about norms can lend strong support to critique of problematic norms in a society. The book is accessible to those who have a modicum of background in contemporary continental ethics, but experts will garner much from it as well.”
-- James C. Swindal, Duquesne University, "Choice" 43:5 (2006)"
The UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights stands as a highpoint of twentieth-century mo... more The UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights stands as a highpoint of twentieth-century moral deliberation, yet sixty years later human rights are widely denied, evaded, or ignored around the world. Where are religious persons in this situation? Here a philosopher and a theologian address the issues with authority, clarity, and genuine passion in a way that does not spare religion or even religious people, who have been among the most egregious violators of human rights in the world.
Faith and Human Rights argues that the idea of human rights is not exclusively religious, but that its realization in practice requires urgent action on the part of people of all faiths – and of none. The authors contend that while faith has much of value to contribute here, the world’s religions will require vigilant reappraisal if they are to function as genuine partners in the global struggle for human dignity. Acknowledging the ambiguous moral legacy of their own tradition, Christianity, the authors draw on Christological themes to draft blueprints for a culturally sensitive “theology of human rights.”
Acclaim for "Faith and Human Rights":
"This is an admirable little book. It gives a clear and authoritative introduction to human rights thinking and the difficulties that arise in relating the universal horizon of human rights to the particular traditions represented by the world's religions. . . . As an introductory text, I don't think this could be bettered."
-- Nicholas Sagovsky, Westminster Abbey, "Theological Book Review" 20:2 (2008)
"This lucid and persuasive articulation of universality is indicative of a second strength of this book: its democratic impulses. Not only does the very project of maintaining rights culture serve the goals of people rule, in that it protects people from domination at the hands of political and economic powers, but the tone in which the authors write serves democratic goals as well. When it comes to rights advocacy, the authors recognize that many different people must join together and engage in such advocacy for many different reasons. This is evident in their explanation of the proper understanding of universality. Their call for political unity from intellectual and spiritual diversity is consistent with the democratic goal of e pluribus unum. For Amesbury and Newlands, the many comprehensive doctrines of the people must become one in support of rights if rights are to thrive in Western political culture. This approach has the fortunate result of broadening the book’s readership, as a particularly Christian form of political reasoning becomes one way among many others to reinforce rights discourse. One need not accept the basic premises and sources of Christian theology as normative in order to read this book; and yet, in the later chapters one will still encounter a particularly Christian way of supporting rights. And although the voice and intended audience of this book are strongly democratic, the Christian political theory in the book’s second half does not suffer for being one possible approach among others."
--Daniel A. Morris, Augustana College, "Journal of Lutheran Ethics" 14:7 (2014)
"The book is a very helpful starting point for Christians in general and theological students in particular seeking to think through Christianity and human rights"
-- Stephen Plant, Trinity Hall, Cambridge, "Theology" CXII: 865 (2009)
Calls for greater freedom of speech on campuses, however well-intentioned, risk undermining colle... more Calls for greater freedom of speech on campuses, however well-intentioned, risk undermining colleges’ central purpose, namely, the production of expert knowledge and understanding, in the sense of disciplinarily warranted opinion. Expertise requires freedom of speech, but it is the result of a process of winnowing and refinement that is premised on the understanding that not all opinions are equally valid. Efforts to “democratize” opinion are antithetical to the role colleges play in educating the public and informing democratic debate. We urge administrators toward caution before uncritically endorsing calls for intellectual diversity in place of academic expertise.
Religion, Populism, and Modernity: Confronting White Christian Nationalism and Racism, ed. Atalia Omer and Joshua Lupo , 2023
Scholars of religion and populism have long noted the instrumental role that religious categories... more Scholars of religion and populism have long noted the instrumental role that religious categories can play in drawing in-group/out-group distinctions that define a "people." This chapter explores the overlooked role of theological language not simply in drawing such distinctions, but in legitimating them. Democratic nation-states uniformly face a paradox of popular sovereignty, the chicken-or-egg problem of rooting authority in a particular conception of the demos whose precise bounds cannot be established through democratic procedures. By reconsidering the discursive entanglements between concepts such as religion, race, and nation, this chapter argues that theological language posits a constitutive prior authority for grounding these distinctions that purports to break free from this paradox. Drawing on examples of so-called right-wing populisms in the United States and Germany, and on the idealized liberal order with which populism is typically contrasted, it shows how movements invoke divine sovereignty to perform popular sovereignty.
This version incorporates new material, including, inter alia:
-- an argument that the categor... more This version incorporates new material, including, inter alia:
-- an argument that the category “fideism” can be understood as a
by-product of the development of secular conceptions of rationality that,
while not overtly hostile to religion, moved God from the premises of
thought to its possible conclusions.
-- a discussion of Duncan Pritchard's "quasi-fideism."
Robert A. Yelle's Sovereignty and the Sacred: Secularism and the Political Economy of Religion ex... more Robert A. Yelle's Sovereignty and the Sacred: Secularism and the Political Economy of Religion explores the apparent convergence between “the central categories of politics and religion respectively, based on their shared qualities of rupture, singularity, and antinomianism.” Contemporary secular political economy rests, he argues, on something like religion. But to make good on this claim, Yelle must confront a challenge: modern polity and economy seek to legitimate themselves through the disavowal and erasure of precisely those antinomian impulses on which, according to Yelle, they in fact depend. Sovereignty and the Sacred is thus also a polemic against false consciousness and ideological mystification, a sustained critique of the impoverished historiography of what might be called methodological secularism. However, it does not fully escape the frame of reference Yelle explicitly rejects, for the history of religions inherits a secular understanding of its subject matter. Like Max Weber's account of charisma, which Yelle analyzes as a secular mytheme, the category of religion has functioned historically as part of a supersessionistic strategy to displace and contain the antinomian. My aim in this essay is not to reject Yelle's argument, but to push it further, toward a reflexive consideration of its vantage point.
Crisis and Critique: Philosophical Analysis and Current Events. Proceedings of the 42nd International Ludwig Wittgenstein Symposium, eds. Anne Siegetsleitner, Andreas Oberprantacher, Marie-Luisa Frick and Ulrich Metschl. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021
So-called democratic states rest upon acts of violence and exclusion which cannot themselves be j... more So-called democratic states rest upon acts of violence and exclusion which cannot themselves be justified democratically. Yet, much contemporary political theory takes these configurations for granted as the context for philosophical reflection. This paper explores some of the spatio-temporal paradoxes of popular sovereignty as conventionally understood -- i.e., as the authorization of government through the consent of "the people." I argue that, instead of treating the borders of popular sovereignty as given, political philosophy would benefit from greater attention to their continual contestation and critique.
While the doctrine of popular sovereignty presupposes the existence of a "people" or demos to whi... more While the doctrine of popular sovereignty presupposes the existence of a "people" or demos to which government is answerable, "peoples" are not naturally occurring, well-bounded units. The respective histories of the United States and India suggest a more complicated picture: the state helps to create and maintain, through force, the people from which it claims to derive its authority.
Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society, 2020
Whereas the idea of human rights is often imagined as placing limits on the political sphere from... more Whereas the idea of human rights is often imagined as placing limits on the political sphere from a standpoint outside it, I argue that it is better conceived as a political project that draws authority from its claim to be apolitical. Such an understanding enables us to historicize human rights and to assess it politically and morally, alongside other normative projects. Samuel Moyn has argued that the contemporary understanding of human rights as rooted in the dignity of the person emerged out of twentieth-century Catholic personalist theology. In the latter half of the essay I consider Simone Weil's objections to the personalist conception of dignity and suggest that Weil's idea of an impersonal, sovereign good provides an alternative conception of value.
This essay explores some of the various ways in which law relates to love and justice. Each of th... more This essay explores some of the various ways in which law relates to love and justice. Each of these concepts – law, love, and justice – is commonly understood to be in some tension with the others, and we can begin to get at these tensions through the observation that law occupies an ambivalent place in our modern cultural imaginary. On the one hand, the rule of law is prized as our highest political achievement, and the specific character of that law is understood as the expression of a sovereign people. On the other hand, law is imagined as a limit on human freedom, at best remediating for the deficiencies that make it necessary and at worst oppressive. As Paul Kahn observes, “When we are not praising the rule of law and ourselves for maintaining law’s rule, we are castigating our law because it reflects nothing more than our own deplorable moral state. We want to be both under law and beyond it.” Of course, this ambivalence about law has its roots not in modern liberalism but in theological anxieties that occupy a central place in the Bible and are imaginatively worked out in various ways in both the Jewish and Christian traditions. That law is today imagined both as condition and as constraint attests to the fact that we are heirs to more than one vision of the world, fully committed both to law and to love.
This dual loyalty is the stuff both of tragedy and of comedy. In Law and Love, his masterful study of King Lear, Kahn argues that Shakespeare’s play offers a tragic vision of the conflict between incommensurable ways of understanding our lives. In the final analysis, love cannot be reconciled with law or justice. This paper picks up on these three modes of thought in the hope of exploring their relation partly in the context of another of Shakespeare’s plays, Measure for Measure. My interest is not in attempting to reconcile competing conceptual logics, but in how, within the play, love is brought into relation with law and justice in a way that seems to forestall the tragedy of Lear. By depicting a social order in which love is subordinated to justice through the exceptionless application of law, Measure for Measure encourages the reader to dream of something beyond law: even when it is not administered unjustly, law – it is intimated – is inadequate without love. If a central theme of Lear is that love cannot be reconciled with law, Measure for Measure emphasizes our need of both.
New cross-cultural approaches to philosophy of religion seek to move it beyond the preoccupations... more New cross-cultural approaches to philosophy of religion seek to move it beyond the preoccupations of Christian theology and the abstractions of 'classical theism', towards an appreciation of a broader range of religious phenomena. But if the concept of religion is itself the product of extrapolation from modern, Western, Christian understandings, disseminated through colonial encounter, does the new philosophy of religion simply reproduce the deficiencies of the old, under the guise of a universalizing, albeit culturally and historically particular, category? This article argues that it is necessary to interrogate the secular episteme within which religion is thematized as a discrete topos.
Contemporary practitioners of political theology make use of Carl Schmitt's account of sovereignt... more Contemporary practitioners of political theology make use of Carl Schmitt's account of sovereignty to criticize liberal political theory. But whereas Schmitt focused on " states of exception, " the new decisionism holds that decision-making is a quotidian feature of jurisprudence: the interpretation of law depends upon judicial decisions that serve to impose meaning on otherwise semantically indeterminate norms. Ironically, it is possible to detect in the contemporary decisionist critique of liberal theory, with its focus on law's meaning, a liberalizing tendency: by insisting on the ubiquity of decision-making, the exception is made to seem unexceptional. In this way, Schmitt is tamed, and sovereignty is diffused into the mundane world of administrative governance. I want to resist this normalizing account on philosophical grounds: if one is to appreciate the exceptional character of the decision, it is important to retain some background of regularity with which it can be contrasted.
Although “secularity” is often contrasted with “religion” as though the distinction between them ... more Although “secularity” is often contrasted with “religion” as though the distinction between them bisected society, sorting practices and people into competing kinds, their relation is better understood as analogous to that between a frame and what is framed by it: secularity so conceived is not simply the inverse, negative space of religion but the epistemic regime that enables us to speak of “religion” in the first place, as a particular object of modern interest and anxiety. Secularity, I contend, can be understood
temporally as that time in which religion occupies space. This paper draws upon Walter
Benjamin’s concept of “Messianic time” to gain critical leverage on the temporal horizons of the nation-state and the neoliberal market.
Recent legal and public debates over circumcision in Germany have tended to pit religious freedom... more Recent legal and public debates over circumcision in Germany have tended to pit religious freedom against bodily integrity. This paper examines the background assumptions about religion and the body on which this framing depends. Insofar as the body is assumed to represent a fixed point determinable independently of 'religion', to frame the debate over circumcision in terms of a clash between rights pertaining respectively to religion and the body is, I argue, to circumscribe and contain religion within boundaries marked by the non-religious and non-negotiable. The secular body is thus not simply an additional consideration to be weighed against religious freedom but a condition of and limit to the modern conception of (free) religion itself. If the physical body is a synecdoche for the social system, the normative, uncircumcised body can be interpreted as standing in for the universalist order of secular law.
Journal of the British Association for the Study of Religions 18 (2016)
Uploads
Upcoming and Recent Events by Richard Amesbury
So-called democratic states rest upon acts of violence and exclusion which cannot themselves be justified democratically. Yet, much contemporary political theory takes these configurations for granted as the context for philosophical reflection. This paper explores some of the spatio-temporal paradoxes of popular sovereignty as conventionally understood – i.e., as the authorization of government through the consent of “the people.” I argue that, instead of treating the borders of popular sovereignty as given, philosophical reflection on political authority would benefit from greater attention to their continual contestation and critique.
In den letzten Jahren sind vor allem in den USA zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Publikationen erschienen, die bestreiten, dass der Ehre in der Moderne der Abschied gegeben wurde und dass ein solcher Abschied überhaupt möglich und wünschbar ist. Sie plädieren dafür, wenigstens bestimmten Formen der Ehre eine höhere Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken, weil ihnen eine zentrale soziale und moralische Bedeutung zukomme.
Die internationale Tagung möchte diesen Impuls aufnehmen und in ethischer, theologisch-anthropologischer und philosophischer Hinsicht kritisch weiterreflektieren. Es referieren namhafte Wissenschaftler aus Theologie, Philosophie, Islamwissenschaft, Jurisprudenz und Politikwissenschaft.
----------------
The status of honor in our society is precarious. To many, it appears to be a patriarchal and violent relic of a hierarchical social order, incompatible with a democratic ethos of equal respect for each individual. Respect among equals is widely regarded as taking precedence over respect for the occupants of specific estates, offices, and professions, at least from an ethical perspective. Does this mean that the concept of honor has failed to achieve the universalizing transformation that has allowed the concept of dignity to become a central ethical and legal concept? Is honor only a marginal phenomenon – e.g., the ideal of sportsmanship in athletic endeavor; the Festschrift in academic life; internet libel lawsuits; or so-called “honor killings”?
In recent years, a body of academic literature has emerged, especially in the U.S., which denies that honor was abandoned in modernity – indeed, that such a rejection would be either possible or desirable. These authors advocate paying greater attention to specific forms of honor which are said to be of central social and moral significance.
This international conference takes up this challenge as an opportunity for critical ethical, theologico-anthropological, and philosophical reflection among leading scholars in the fields of theology, philosophy, Islamic studies, and jurisprudence.
Time: 18:15 h
Place: University of Zurich, Main Building
Rämistrasse 71, 8001 Zurich
Room KOL-G-209
20. Mai 2016
18:15 – 19:45 Uhr
Veranstaltungsort: Theologisches Seminar UZH, Kirchgasse 9, 8001 Zürich. Raum: KIR 200
Organisation: Michael Braunschweig (Institut für Sozialethik), Anita Horn (Philosophisches Seminar), Friederike Rass (Collegium Helveticum).
The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in the German jurist and philosopher Carl Schmitt, who defined political sovereignty in relation to the concept of the decision. A growing number of legal and political theorists — sometimes characterized as doing political theology — has argued that decision is an inescapable element of legal interpretation. Drawing on the later Wittgenstein’s so-called “rule-following considerations,” this paper challenges a certain metaphysical picture to which these theorists sometimes appeal, which envisions a necessary gap between law and its application, and a corresponding conception of the self that privileges will over reason.
So-called democratic states rest upon acts of violence and exclusion which cannot themselves be justified democratically. Yet, much contemporary political theory takes these configurations for granted as the context for philosophical reflection. This paper explores some of the spatio-temporal paradoxes of popular sovereignty as conventionally understood – i.e., as the authorization of government through the consent of “the people.” I argue that, instead of treating the borders of popular sovereignty as given, philosophical reflection on political authority would benefit from greater attention to their continual contestation and critique.
In den letzten Jahren sind vor allem in den USA zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Publikationen erschienen, die bestreiten, dass der Ehre in der Moderne der Abschied gegeben wurde und dass ein solcher Abschied überhaupt möglich und wünschbar ist. Sie plädieren dafür, wenigstens bestimmten Formen der Ehre eine höhere Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken, weil ihnen eine zentrale soziale und moralische Bedeutung zukomme.
Die internationale Tagung möchte diesen Impuls aufnehmen und in ethischer, theologisch-anthropologischer und philosophischer Hinsicht kritisch weiterreflektieren. Es referieren namhafte Wissenschaftler aus Theologie, Philosophie, Islamwissenschaft, Jurisprudenz und Politikwissenschaft.
----------------
The status of honor in our society is precarious. To many, it appears to be a patriarchal and violent relic of a hierarchical social order, incompatible with a democratic ethos of equal respect for each individual. Respect among equals is widely regarded as taking precedence over respect for the occupants of specific estates, offices, and professions, at least from an ethical perspective. Does this mean that the concept of honor has failed to achieve the universalizing transformation that has allowed the concept of dignity to become a central ethical and legal concept? Is honor only a marginal phenomenon – e.g., the ideal of sportsmanship in athletic endeavor; the Festschrift in academic life; internet libel lawsuits; or so-called “honor killings”?
In recent years, a body of academic literature has emerged, especially in the U.S., which denies that honor was abandoned in modernity – indeed, that such a rejection would be either possible or desirable. These authors advocate paying greater attention to specific forms of honor which are said to be of central social and moral significance.
This international conference takes up this challenge as an opportunity for critical ethical, theologico-anthropological, and philosophical reflection among leading scholars in the fields of theology, philosophy, Islamic studies, and jurisprudence.
Time: 18:15 h
Place: University of Zurich, Main Building
Rämistrasse 71, 8001 Zurich
Room KOL-G-209
20. Mai 2016
18:15 – 19:45 Uhr
Veranstaltungsort: Theologisches Seminar UZH, Kirchgasse 9, 8001 Zürich. Raum: KIR 200
Organisation: Michael Braunschweig (Institut für Sozialethik), Anita Horn (Philosophisches Seminar), Friederike Rass (Collegium Helveticum).
The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in the German jurist and philosopher Carl Schmitt, who defined political sovereignty in relation to the concept of the decision. A growing number of legal and political theorists — sometimes characterized as doing political theology — has argued that decision is an inescapable element of legal interpretation. Drawing on the later Wittgenstein’s so-called “rule-following considerations,” this paper challenges a certain metaphysical picture to which these theorists sometimes appeal, which envisions a necessary gap between law and its application, and a corresponding conception of the self that privileges will over reason.
Though clearly absorbed with ethical questions throughout his life and work, Wittgenstein's remarks about the subject do not easily lend themselves to summation or theorizing. Although many moral philosophers cite the influence or inspiration of Wittgenstein, there is little agreement about precisely what it means to do ethics in the light of Wittgenstein.
Ethics after Wittgenstein brings together an international cohort of leading scholars in the field to address this problem. The chapters advance a conception of philosophical ethics characterized by an attention to detail, meaning and importance which itself makes ethical demands on its practitioners. Working in conversation with literature and film, engaging deeply with anthropology and critical theory, and addressing contemporary problems from racialized sexual violence against women to the Islamic State, these contributors reclaim Wittgenstein's legacy as an indispensable resource for contemporary ethics.
Acclaim for "Morality and Social Criticism":
"Richard Amesbury has produced an excellent book. . . . Amesbury’s central project is to preserve –- as Rorty’s pragmatism self-admittedly cannot –- the rationality of radical criticism within the spheres of moral, political and religious thought and action. In doing this he finds himself confronting issues that relate quite generally to the nature of rationality and these he takes to be linked inextricably to the philosophy of language and to be fundamentally logical. It is this that gives Amesbury’s book a much wider appeal than that of most books of its size on social philosophy. Its critical momentum is grounded on a conception of rule-following behaviour which gives primacy to normative practices, which in some sense, lie at the roots of human beings’ actions and, thus, of human societies."
-- Guy Stock, University of Dundee, "Philosophical Investigations" 31:4 (2008)
“Amesbury provides a solid reconstruction of recent attempts in continental philosophy to theorize in a nonfoundational way about the status and function of social norms. He takes a middle ground between the strongly universalizing theory of discourse ethics (Habermas) and the rejection of universality represented by deconstruction (Derrida and to some extent Rorty). Norms are thus neither platonically ahistorical nor mere contingent posits. With the help of Robert Brandom's recent pragmatic account of norms, Amesbury argues that they are implicit in practices; the philosophical task is simply to make them explicit. Thus he avoids the regress of norms found in a position he calls ‘regulism.’ But he does think that no ethical reasoning can be done without a backdrop of certain moral commitments about which ‘doubts do not ordinarily arise.’ This is the key assumption of his ‘ordinary realism.’ The hope is that such a realist model of reasoning about norms can lend strong support to critique of problematic norms in a society. The book is accessible to those who have a modicum of background in contemporary continental ethics, but experts will garner much from it as well.”
-- James C. Swindal, Duquesne University, "Choice" 43:5 (2006)"
Faith and Human Rights argues that the idea of human rights is not exclusively religious, but that its realization in practice requires urgent action on the part of people of all faiths – and of none. The authors contend that while faith has much of value to contribute here, the world’s religions will require vigilant reappraisal if they are to function as genuine partners in the global struggle for human dignity. Acknowledging the ambiguous moral legacy of their own tradition, Christianity, the authors draw on Christological themes to draft blueprints for a culturally sensitive “theology of human rights.”
Acclaim for "Faith and Human Rights":
"This is an admirable little book. It gives a clear and authoritative introduction to human rights thinking and the difficulties that arise in relating the universal horizon of human rights to the particular traditions represented by the world's religions. . . . As an introductory text, I don't think this could be bettered."
-- Nicholas Sagovsky, Westminster Abbey, "Theological Book Review" 20:2 (2008)
"This lucid and persuasive articulation of universality is indicative of a second strength of this book: its democratic impulses. Not only does the very project of maintaining rights culture serve the goals of people rule, in that it protects people from domination at the hands of political and economic powers, but the tone in which the authors write serves democratic goals as well. When it comes to rights advocacy, the authors recognize that many different people must join together and engage in such advocacy for many different reasons. This is evident in their explanation of the proper understanding of universality. Their call for political unity from intellectual and spiritual diversity is consistent with the democratic goal of e pluribus unum. For Amesbury and Newlands, the many comprehensive doctrines of the people must become one in support of rights if rights are to thrive in Western political culture. This approach has the fortunate result of broadening the book’s readership, as a particularly Christian form of political reasoning becomes one way among many others to reinforce rights discourse. One need not accept the basic premises and sources of Christian theology as normative in order to read this book; and yet, in the later chapters one will still encounter a particularly Christian way of supporting rights. And although the voice and intended audience of this book are strongly democratic, the Christian political theory in the book’s second half does not suffer for being one possible approach among others."
--Daniel A. Morris, Augustana College, "Journal of Lutheran Ethics" 14:7 (2014)
"The book is a very helpful starting point for Christians in general and theological students in particular seeking to think through Christianity and human rights"
-- Stephen Plant, Trinity Hall, Cambridge, "Theology" CXII: 865 (2009)
-- an argument that the category “fideism” can be understood as a
by-product of the development of secular conceptions of rationality that,
while not overtly hostile to religion, moved God from the premises of
thought to its possible conclusions.
-- a discussion of Duncan Pritchard's "quasi-fideism."
-- and updated bibliography.
This dual loyalty is the stuff both of tragedy and of comedy. In Law and Love, his masterful study of King Lear, Kahn argues that Shakespeare’s play offers a tragic vision of the conflict between incommensurable ways of understanding our lives. In the final analysis, love cannot be reconciled with law or justice. This paper picks up on these three modes of thought in the hope of exploring their relation partly in the context of another of Shakespeare’s plays, Measure for Measure. My interest is not in attempting to reconcile competing conceptual logics, but in how, within the play, love is brought into relation with law and justice in a way that seems to forestall the tragedy of Lear. By depicting a social order in which love is subordinated to justice through the exceptionless application of law, Measure for Measure encourages the reader to dream of something beyond law: even when it is not administered unjustly, law – it is intimated – is inadequate without love. If a central theme of Lear is that love cannot be reconciled with law, Measure for Measure emphasizes our need of both.
temporally as that time in which religion occupies space. This paper draws upon Walter
Benjamin’s concept of “Messianic time” to gain critical leverage on the temporal horizons of the nation-state and the neoliberal market.
Journal of the British Association for the Study of Religions 18 (2016)