Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:59:04.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Virtue: A Neglected Concept in Protestant Ethics*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Eilert Herms
Eilert Herms
Affiliation:
Schellingstrasse 3 III Vg., D-8000 München 40, West Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this lecture I have three aims in view. First I shall review some of the main points of the theological theory of virtue in its classic medieval form, and consider how the same theme has been taken up in protestant ethics, sometimes in a constructive, sometimes in a negative tone. Second I wish to present my grounds for believing that arguments put forward in protestant ethics against any theory of virtue are insufficient, and to indicate why I hold that protestant ethics too needs an elaborated theory of virtue. Then finally I shall try, at least sketchily, to indicate the direction in which I feel such a theory could be developed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , December 1982 , pp. 481 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 It is convenient to distinguish between ‘thomistic’ and ‘thomasian’ theology. Whereas the former refers to certain lines in modern Roman theology, the latter means the teaching of Thomas Aquinas himself. Obviously these are two different things, which can and should be judged differently. (The terminological distinction now seems to be current in Roman Catholic literature.)

2 Summa Theologiae I q. 75 art. 2

3 S. T. I q. 76 art. 1.

4 S. T. I q. 77 art. 1.

5 S. T. I q. 75 art. 6.

6 S. T. I qq. 79–80.

7 S. T. I q. 80 art. 2; q. 82: II qq. 6, 8ss.

8 S. T. I q. 80 art. 2; q. 81; II qq. 6, 22ss.

9 S. T. II qq. 7ss., 22ss.

10 S. T. II q. 6 intr.; q. 49 intr.; qq. 49ss.; qq. 90ss.

11 S. T. II qq. 90–108.

12 S. T. II qq. 49ss., 55ss., 71ss.

13 S. T. II q. 49.

14 S. T. II q. 50 art. 2.

15 S. T. II q. 61 art. 1; q. 56 art. 3.

16 S. T. II q. 56 art. 3.

17 S. T. II q. 51 art. 1, 2, 4; q. 63.

18 S. T. II qq. 52–3.

19 S. T. II q. 61.

20 S. T. II q. 62.

21 S. T. II q. 65 art. 2; q. 114.

22 See Trillhaas, Wolfgang, Ethik. Berlin, 1959, pp. 140f.Google Scholar

23 On Schleiermacher's ethics, cf. Birkner, H.-J., Schleiermachers chrislliche Sittenlehre. Im Zusammenhang seines philosophisch-theologischen Systems. Berlin, 1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Herms, E., ‘Die Ethik des Wissens beim späten Schleiermacher’. Z.Th.K. 73 (1976), pp. 471–523.Google Scholar

24 See his ‘Grundlinien einer Kritik der bisherigen Sittenlehre’, in F. Schleiermachers sämmtliche Werke, Dritte Abtheilung: Zur Philosophic, Bd. I. Berlin, 1846.Google Scholar

25 Frankena, W. K., Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, 1963Google Scholar; German edition München, 1972, p. 28.

26 F. Schleiermachers sämmtliche Werke, Dritte Abtheilung: Zur Philosophic, Bd. II Berlin, 1838, pp. 350–378.Google Scholar

27 op.cit., pp. 376ff.

28 cf. W. Trillhaas (supra, n. 22).

29 Thus Holl, K., Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, Bd. I: Luther, pp. 167ff.Google Scholar

30 op.cit., p. 178.

31 Joseph Klein, art. ‘Tugend’. RGG 3 Bd.VI.col. 1084.

32 For Luther's criticism of this aspect of scholastic anthropology cf. Joest, W.. Ontologie der Person bei Luther. Göttingen, 1967.Google Scholar

33 cf. S. Wibbing, art. ‘Tugend’. Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon, Bd. III, col. 1519ff.

34 Such a denial is aimed at by Prenter, Regin, Luthers Begriff vom Wirken Gottes, des Heiligen Geistes. Göttingen, 1957Google Scholar. — Against this thesis, and rightly: Gerdes, Hayo, ‘Zu Luthers Lehre vom Wirken des Heiligen Geistes’. Lutherjahrbuch 25 (1958), pp. 42–60.Google Scholar

35 As was most emphatically and effectively underlined by Weber, Max, ‘Politik als Beruf’. Gesammelte politische Schriften. 3. Aufl. Tübingen, 1958: see esp. pp. 548ff.Google Scholar

36 Consideration only of a man's action, of whether he is doing his duty, which at the same time proscribes any judgment as to his character and personal qualities, in short as to virtue, and consequently neglects the dynamic interdependence between acting and being, is diagnosed by Scheler, Max as ‘bourgeois’, that is, as a certain depraved style of moral life: see his ‘Zur Rehabilitierung der Tugend’. Vom Umsturz der Werte. 2. Aufl., 1919, Bd. I, pp. 13–42.Google Scholar

37 cf. e.g. Pieper, J., Vom Sinn der Tapferkeit (1934)Google Scholar; Über die Hoffnung (1935); Traktat über die Klugheit (1937); Zucht and Maß (1939); Über die Gerechtigkeit (1953); Die Wirklichkeit und das Gute (3. Aufl. 1949).

38 Fides, spes und caritas beim jungen Luther unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der mittelalterlichen Tradition. Berlin, 1962.Google Scholar

39 W A II p. 536.

40 What I have tried to outline obviously connects in several ways with the theory of the personal Self developed in social psychology since William James and G. H. Mead on the one hand, and with psychoanalytical characterology on the other — cf. e.g. the contributions of Erikson, Fromm and Kohut.

41 E.g. Luther in Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen: ‘Gute, fromme Werke machen nimmermehr einen guten, frommen Mann, sondern ein guter, frommer Mann macht gute, fromme Werke.’ (W A VII p. 32)

42 These elements are surely not wholly irrational, but resolvable.