Totally agree. I can just guess that maybe he didn't have time to complete that part of the equation before his life was taken.
Though as I hinted at, we did 'go there' in later years, as I saw through Sociology studies in college.
As I noted below to @ashtelandpony , one of the drawbacks of this early treatment of the concept was that he calls the troublesome people/group "stupid" For the sake of better clarity (hopefully) and less subjectivism, let's call them "ethics deny-ers", which additionally removes the self-punishing of ourselves for non-heinous stupid mistakes which we all make once in a while.
Anyhow, Sociologically the interactive choices with one of these errant people, are: 1) Discussion 2) Detour 3) Defense, and 4) Declarations
Discussion is probably the only way to truly 'liberate' someone from problematic thoughts that can harm themselves and others. Standards vary from place to place, but some basic tenets are usually recognized by those with consideration in a culture.
Detour is where we just throw our arms up and walk around them if we can, because we've determined that it's futile to reason.
Defense is usually physical altercation when an unethical entity doesn't back down.
And Declarations describes that in each society, a body of laws is decided by something (whether courts or the people or some entity "in charge") that attempts to keep the ethics deny-ers in check and therefore keep the society running as harmoniously as possible (in a benevolent society, though that is not always the case in a hazily motivated government). But that's going off course a bit...
I get the feeling that Bonhoeffer just didn't have the time to refine his thoughts further before he was snuffed out, but social studies have explored such things further... If only it was a required course for kids in grammar school, and not some elective in college :|
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2021-11-13 09:03 am (UTC)Though as I hinted at, we did 'go there' in later years, as I saw through Sociology studies in college.
As I noted below to @ashtelandpony , one of the drawbacks of this early treatment of the concept was that he calls the troublesome people/group "stupid" For the sake of better clarity (hopefully) and less subjectivism, let's call them "ethics deny-ers", which additionally removes the self-punishing of ourselves for non-heinous stupid mistakes which we all make once in a while.
Anyhow, Sociologically the interactive choices with one of these errant people, are:
1) Discussion
2) Detour
3) Defense, and
4) Declarations
Discussion is probably the only way to truly 'liberate' someone from problematic thoughts that can harm themselves and others. Standards vary from place to place, but some basic tenets are usually recognized by those with consideration in a culture.
Detour is where we just throw our arms up and walk around them if we can, because we've determined that it's futile to reason.
Defense is usually physical altercation when an unethical entity doesn't back down.
And Declarations describes that in each society, a body of laws is decided by something (whether courts or the people or some entity "in charge") that attempts to keep the ethics deny-ers in check and therefore keep the society running as harmoniously as possible (in a benevolent society, though that is not always the case in a hazily motivated government). But that's going off course a bit...
I get the feeling that Bonhoeffer just didn't have the time to refine his thoughts further before he was snuffed out, but social studies have explored such things further... If only it was a required course for kids in grammar school, and not some elective in college :|