While ethics of responsibility question the consequences of acts, ethics of conviction measure the quality of deeds primarily by reference to moral principles as well as intentions. The public debate on the European refugee crisis frequently bears witness to a clash of these two takes on ethics. However, an open, constitutional democracy cannot exist without limits and boundaries if it wants to remain able to act and to protect its inhabitants as well as migrants and refugees. The lack of conclusive refugee and migration politics highlights a homemade crisis of politics which can be labelled as organised irresponsibility. An ethics of responsibility must enable realistic and workable politics which assume responsibility in concrete situations. So far, churches as agents of civil society have mainly used conviction-ethical arguments loosely based around the biblical principles of Christian charity and welcoming strangers, as well as the option for the poor, but have also spoken out in favour of fair distribution which is a responsibility-ethical argument. A closer look reveals that current refugee politics do not benefit the weakest. These ethical dilemmata must be faced by asking what mode of living together and what future we ultimately want, which is an eschatological and thus highly theological question.

Enthalten in:
Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik; 2016/4 Kommentare, Studien, Berichte, Dokumentationen, Diskussionen, Rezensionen, Bibliographie (2016)

---

Serie / Reihe: Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik

Personen: Körtner, Ulrich H. J.

Schlagwörter: Ethik Flüchtlingspolitik