Nigel Biggar

a Moral Reckoning

Colonialism

What's Wrong with Rights? argues that contemporary rights-talk obscures the importance civic virtue, military effectiveness and the democratic law legitimacy. It draws upon legal and moral philosophy, moral theology, and court judgments. It spans discussions from medieval Christendom to contemporary debates about justified killing.

What's Wrong with Rights?

Pacifism is popular. Many hold that war is unnecessary, since peaceful means of resolving conflict are always available, if only we had the will to look for them. Or they believe that war is wicked, essentially involving hatred of the enemy and carelessness of human life. Or they posit the absolute right of innocent individuals not to be deliberately killed, making it impossible to justify war in practice. Against the virus of wishful thinking, anti-militarycaricature, and the domination of moral deliberation by rights-talk In Defence of War asserts that belligerency can be morally justified, even while it is tragic and morally flawed. Recovering the earlyChristian tradition of just war thinking, it argues in favour of aggressive war in punishment of grave injustice; that morality can justify military intervention even in transgression of positive international law (e.g., Kosovo); that love and the doctrine of double effect can survive combat; that the constraints of proportionality are sufficiently permissive to sanction Britain's belligerency in 1914-18; and that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified.

In Defence of War

Linda Hogan

Must religious voices keep quiet in public places? Does fairness in a plural society require it? Must the expression of religious belief be so authoritarian as to threaten civil peace? Do we need translation into 'secular' language, or should we try to manage polyglot conversation? How neutral is 'secular' language? Is a religious argument necessarily unreasonable? What issues are specific to Islam within this exchange? These are just some of the pressing questions addressed by Religious Voices in Public Places. Drawn from Australia, Canada, France, Ireland and England-as well as the United States-thirteen contributors take the long-running discussion about religion in the public square beyond its usual American confines. Religious Voices in Public Places comprehends both political philosophy and theology, and moves adeptly between political theory and practice. Whether offering critical analyses of key theorists such as John Rawls, Jeffrey Stout and Jürgen Habermas, or pursuing the issue of the public expression of religion into the debate about religious education in the USA, the legalisation of euthanasia in the UK, and human rights worldwide, this incisive volume speaks directly into crucial areas of religious and political complexity.

Religious Voices in Public Places

Essays in Commemoration of the Centenary of Karl Barth's Birth

Reckoning with Barth

The nation-state is here to stay. Thirty years ago it was fashionable to predict its imminent demise, but the sudden break-up of the Soviet Union in the 1990s unshackled long-repressed nationalisms and generated a host of new states. The closer integration of the European Union has given intra-national nationalisms a new lease of life, confirming the viability of small nation-states under a supra-national umbrella--after all, if Ireland and Iceland, then why not Scotland and Catalonia? And then the world stage has seen new and powerful national players moving from the wings to the centre: China, India, and Brazil are full of a sense of growing into their own national destinies, and are in no mood either to dissolve into, or to defer to, some larger body. Nations, nationalisms, and nation-states are persistent facts, but what should we think of them morally? Surely humanity, not a nation, should claim our loyalty? How can it be right to exclude foreigners by policing borders? Can a liberal nation-state thrive without a cohering public orthodoxy? Does national sovereignty confer immunity? Is national separatism always justified? These are urgent questions. Between Kin and Cosmopolis offers timely Christian answers.

An Ethic of the Nation

Between Kin and Cosmopolis

Pacifism is popular. Many hold that war is unnecessary, since peaceful means of resolving conflict are always available, if only we had the will to look for them. Or they believe that war is wicked, essentially involving hatred of the enemy and carelessness of human life. Or they posit the absolute right of innocent individuals not to be deliberately killed, making it impossible to justify war in practice. Peace, however, is not simple. Peace for some can leave others at peace to perpetrate mass atrocity. What was peace for the West in 1994 was not peace for the Tutsis of Rwanda. Therefore, against the virus of wishful thinking, anti-military caricature, and the domination of moral deliberation by rights-talk In Defence of War asserts that belligerency can be morally justified, even though tragic and morally flawed.

No one can deny how September 11, 2001, has altered our understandings of "Peace" and "Justice" and "Civil Conflict." Those have become words with startling new life in our vocabularies. Yet "making" peace and "doing" justice must remain challenges that are among the highest callings of humanity—especially in a terror-heightened world. Nigel Biggar, Christian ethicist and editor of this now more than ever "must read" (Choice) volume, newly expanded and updated, addresses head-on the concept of a redemptive burying of the past, urging that the events of that infamous date be approached as a transnational model of conflict-and suggesting, wisely and calmly, that justice can be even the better understood if we should undertake the very important task of locating the sources of hostility, valid or not, toward the West. Burying the Past asks these important questions: How do newly democratic nations put to rest the conflicts of the past? Is granting forgiveness a politically viable choice for those in power? Should justice be restorative or retributive? Beginning with a conceptual approach to justice and forgiveness and moving to an examination of reconciliation on the political and on the psychological level, the collection examines the quality of peace as it has been forged in the civil conflicts in Rwanda, South Africa, Chile, Guatemala and Northern Ireland. There are times in history when "making peace" and "doing justice" seem almost impossible in the face of horrendous events. Those responses are understandably human. But it is in times just like these when humanity can—and must—rise to its possibilities and to its higher purposes in order to continue considering itself just and humane.

Making Peace and Doing Justice After Civil Conflict, Expanded and Updated Edition

Burying the Past

Are natural rights 'nonsense on stilts', as Jeremy Bentham memorably put it? Must the very notion of a right be individualistic, subverting the common good? Should the right against torture be absolute, even though the heavens fall? Are human rights universal or merely expressions of Western neo-imperial arrogance? Are rights ethically fundamental, proudly impervious to changing circumstances? Should judges strive to extend the reach of rights from civil Hamburg to anarchical Basra? Should judicial oligarchies, rather than legislatures, decide controversial ethical issues by inventing novel rights? Ought human rights advocates learn greater sympathy for the dilemmas facing those burdened with government? These are the questions that What's Wrong with Rights? addresses. In doing so, it draws upon resources in intellectual history, legal philosophy, moral philosophy, moral theology, human rights literature, and the judgments of courts. It ranges from debates about property in medieval Christendom, through Confucian rights-scepticism, to contemporary discussions about the remedy for global hunger and the justification of killing. And it straddles assisted dying in Canada, the military occupation of Iraq, and genocide in Rwanda. What's Wrong with Rights? concludes that much contemporary rights-talk obscures the importance of fostering civic virtue, corrodes military effectiveness, subverts the democratic legitimacy of law, proliferates publicly onerous rights, and undermines their authority and credibility. The solution to these problems lies in the abandonment of rights-fundamentalism and the recovery of a richer public discourse about ethics, one that includes talk about the duty and virtue of rights-holders.

Jamie S. Scott

William Schweiker

In this fertile collection of essays, prominent theologians, philosophers, historians, and social scientists explore the mutual entanglements of religious identity with political activity in religiously plural societies. Four essays are devoted to each of the three great religions of The Book, evidencing the variety of conceptions of such a relation within the same religious tradition and demonstrating how they came to be so conceived. In addition, the three sections together display intriguing similarities between the conceptions that are pertinent to the different traditions. These range from definant theocracy to religious sanction of the liberal, secular state.

Faith, Politics, and Pluralism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

Cities of Gods

Too often, says Nigel Biggar, contemporary Christian ethics poses a false choice either conservative theological integrity or liberal secular consensus. Behaving in Public explains both why and how Christians should resist these polar options. Informed by a frankly Christian theological vision of moral life and so turning toward the world with openness and curiosity, Biggar s succinct argument charts a third way forward. Common sense is usually bland and boring. Nigel Biggar s book Behaving in Public, however, is full of common sense that is anything but bland and boring. That s because Biggar employs his common sense polemically to show what s deficient in one and another position on speaking as a Christian in public, and to point to alternatives. Over and over I found myself saying, Yes, of course; he s right. This is a wonderfully fresh, perceptive, and sensible discussion. Nicholas Wolterstorff Yale University How can the church witness effectively in public debates in modern, mostly secular societies, without either losing its integrity or imposing its perspectives on others? In this important new book Nigel Biggar maintains that the integrity of the Christian message should not be confused with distinctiveness. . . . Offers a nuanced yet demanding position on the public role of the church, cutting through unhelpful dichotomies and reminding us that theological seriousness need not be sectarian or intolerant. Jean Porter University of Notre Dame Clear in thought, elegant in expression, and generous in dialogue, this book offers a new and convincing approach to Christian ethics. . . . Biggar argues for the integrity of a mature, discriminating, nonmoralizing Christian ethics which is inspired and equipped for critical engagement with the church and the wider public and which cares about the flourishing of both. Werner G. Jeanrond University of Glasgow Behaving in Public shows people who care about public life how to combine theological integrity and political effectiveness. . . . This is a theology that offers an alternative to today s polarized politics. Robin W. Lovin Southern Methodist University

Nigel Biggar

About

Books

Join the club