What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ethical Demand
Knud Ejler Løgstrup’s The Ethical Demand is the most original influential Danish contribution to moral philosophy in this century. This is the first time that the complete text has been available in English translation. Originally published in 1956, it has again become the subject of widespread interest in Europe, now read in the context of the whole of Løgstrup’s work.
The Ethical Demand marks a break not only with utilitarianism and with Kantianism but also with Kierkegaard’s Christian existentialism and with all forms of subjectivism. Yet Løgstrup’s project is not destructive. Rather, it is a presentation of an alternative understanding of interpersonal life. The ethical demand presupposes that all interaction between human beings involves a basic trust. Its content cannot be derived from any rule. For Løgstrup, there is not Christian morality and secular morality. There is only human morality.
The Ethical Demand marks a break not only with utilitarianism and with Kantianism but also with Kierkegaard’s Christian existentialism and with all forms of subjectivism. Yet Løgstrup’s project is not destructive. Rather, it is a presentation of an alternative understanding of interpersonal life. The ethical demand presupposes that all interaction between human beings involves a basic trust. Its content cannot be derived from any rule. For Løgstrup, there is not Christian morality and secular morality. There is only human morality.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
344 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1997
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 14, 2018
I spent a long time with Løgstrup’s unique contribution to European ethics, and over and over again, with nearly every chapter, I found myself increasingly impressed and inspired by his discourse. Here is a theory built around our obligation to love our neighbours – explicitly theological in origin, but painstakingly secular in its justification. It’s such a simple and timeless goal, and Løgstrup’s defence of it is unique and remarkable. His theory is, at its core, simple enough. In every interaction that occurs between two people, there is generated constant power relations. If I smile at you across the room, I am putting myself into your power, to snub me or to return the greeting. The self-evidence of this is to be found in our reactions to social interaction. How do you feel if someone snubs you? Somehow violated. How do you feel before asking someone out for a date? Vulnerable. Løgstrup says that the power we have over other people from these kind of interactions generates a demand – the eponymous ethical demand – to act in that person’s best interests.
I found this to be a profound perception of the character of human relations – all communication and social interaction comprises of varying levels of vulnerability. We spend our lives creating defence mechanisms against this vulnerability; the very character of social norms is to regulate interaction so as to prevent crippling vulnerability in even the most basic situations. So easily, though, these defence mechanisms can become so all empowering that we lose track of what’s inside, we become callous and uncaring, or else crippled by self-conscious anxiety. Løgstrup calls for us to step out from ourselves and start living for the other. This is at once biblical, Lutheran and existential. It is absolutely profound in its simplicity. It’s so obvious. Love is the message that has resounded through the ages. You have power over people; they have power over you. Use love.
Unfortunately, it’s not so simple. The basic claim, while powerful, is no more an ethical theory than Jesus’ Golden Rule on which it is based. It should be obvious why we should choose love, but this is ethics, not dogmatics. Løgstrup’s theory is challenging, but I think actually feasible. He suggests that the reason we should live for the other is that life is a gift. This is dangerously close to a theological explanation – where there is a gift, surely there is a giver. Many have left Løgstrup at that, but doing so is to ignore Løgstrup as a phenomenologist. Life is given by existence. This may seem obscure but it’s actually quite simple. All the characteristics you possess are given to you by life itself – you are born as you are not out of any active force on your part. Your life is a gift from the universe. The implication is that because life is given rather than self-made, you have no inherent right to it. There is no justification for acting in self interest; any such justification is an illusory construct of the ego. Løgstrup is not calling on us to become martyrs, but simply to recognise that acting in self interest is a phenomenologically unfounded position.
This is obviously a brief explanation of a book-long upbuilding discourse that can never do justice to the nuance Løgstrup brings. He expertly shuts down a whole lot of potential criticisms that will immediately come to mind. As I read it, there were a number of times when after a chapter I would think ‘but what about this’, only for Løgstrup to deal with that exact issue in the following chapter. On the whole, while The Ethical Demand isn’t perfect, it is a remarkably viable proposition. It sits neatly outside of the traditionally prominent strains of western ethical thought – utilitarianism and Kantian deontology – and is thus free from many of the pitfalls. For example, where utilitarianism is prone to excessive disregard for the individual, and deontology places too much regard on the individual, Løgstrupian ethics sits in between these poles, maintaining the individual, but equally raising up the other.
Perhaps the most difficult element of The Ethical Demand is perhaps that which Løgstrup views as most central. For Løgstrup, the ethical demand is unfulfillable. That is to say that the fact it has become a demand means that we have already fallen short of the love that is required. When we act out of love, we do not think – there is no demand. If you visit your poorly relative because ethics demands it, you have fallen short of love. This seems not distant from Aristotle’s virtue ethics. Here the virtuous don’t even think about being virtuous, they simply are virtuous. Everyone who copies them may still be good, but they always fall short of perfect virtue, because it is not second nature. This is challenging because it brings into question the very purpose of having an ethical theory that we always inevitably fall short of. This unresolved contradiction creates a tension that I think relates back to the existential elements in Løgstrup’s ethics. Just as in Kierkegaard there is the tension between our mortality and our transcendence, the tension that sparks all anxiety, in Løgstrup we have the tension between our need to live for the other and our constant failure to do so. It would be a stretch to view this as the origin of all anxiety, but it’s clear that it identifies a crucial battle of the ego against the other, something that we all face. How much attention should we give those around us? Are we not giving enough? Are we giving too much?
In all, it’s a wonder that Løgstrup isn’t read more widely outside of Denmark. The Ethical Demand predates many debates in the ethical literature to which it could provide viable solutions by many decades. Here is a Christian ethics without the need for a god – what could resonate better among western nations still struggling with post-theocratic ethical morass. Unfortunately, Løgstrup was probably just writing in the wrong place, in the wrong language, at the wrong time. Here’s to hoping for a brighter future for Løgstrupian ethics.
https://jdcloughblog.wordpress.com/20...
I found this to be a profound perception of the character of human relations – all communication and social interaction comprises of varying levels of vulnerability. We spend our lives creating defence mechanisms against this vulnerability; the very character of social norms is to regulate interaction so as to prevent crippling vulnerability in even the most basic situations. So easily, though, these defence mechanisms can become so all empowering that we lose track of what’s inside, we become callous and uncaring, or else crippled by self-conscious anxiety. Løgstrup calls for us to step out from ourselves and start living for the other. This is at once biblical, Lutheran and existential. It is absolutely profound in its simplicity. It’s so obvious. Love is the message that has resounded through the ages. You have power over people; they have power over you. Use love.
Unfortunately, it’s not so simple. The basic claim, while powerful, is no more an ethical theory than Jesus’ Golden Rule on which it is based. It should be obvious why we should choose love, but this is ethics, not dogmatics. Løgstrup’s theory is challenging, but I think actually feasible. He suggests that the reason we should live for the other is that life is a gift. This is dangerously close to a theological explanation – where there is a gift, surely there is a giver. Many have left Løgstrup at that, but doing so is to ignore Løgstrup as a phenomenologist. Life is given by existence. This may seem obscure but it’s actually quite simple. All the characteristics you possess are given to you by life itself – you are born as you are not out of any active force on your part. Your life is a gift from the universe. The implication is that because life is given rather than self-made, you have no inherent right to it. There is no justification for acting in self interest; any such justification is an illusory construct of the ego. Løgstrup is not calling on us to become martyrs, but simply to recognise that acting in self interest is a phenomenologically unfounded position.
This is obviously a brief explanation of a book-long upbuilding discourse that can never do justice to the nuance Løgstrup brings. He expertly shuts down a whole lot of potential criticisms that will immediately come to mind. As I read it, there were a number of times when after a chapter I would think ‘but what about this’, only for Løgstrup to deal with that exact issue in the following chapter. On the whole, while The Ethical Demand isn’t perfect, it is a remarkably viable proposition. It sits neatly outside of the traditionally prominent strains of western ethical thought – utilitarianism and Kantian deontology – and is thus free from many of the pitfalls. For example, where utilitarianism is prone to excessive disregard for the individual, and deontology places too much regard on the individual, Løgstrupian ethics sits in between these poles, maintaining the individual, but equally raising up the other.
Perhaps the most difficult element of The Ethical Demand is perhaps that which Løgstrup views as most central. For Løgstrup, the ethical demand is unfulfillable. That is to say that the fact it has become a demand means that we have already fallen short of the love that is required. When we act out of love, we do not think – there is no demand. If you visit your poorly relative because ethics demands it, you have fallen short of love. This seems not distant from Aristotle’s virtue ethics. Here the virtuous don’t even think about being virtuous, they simply are virtuous. Everyone who copies them may still be good, but they always fall short of perfect virtue, because it is not second nature. This is challenging because it brings into question the very purpose of having an ethical theory that we always inevitably fall short of. This unresolved contradiction creates a tension that I think relates back to the existential elements in Løgstrup’s ethics. Just as in Kierkegaard there is the tension between our mortality and our transcendence, the tension that sparks all anxiety, in Løgstrup we have the tension between our need to live for the other and our constant failure to do so. It would be a stretch to view this as the origin of all anxiety, but it’s clear that it identifies a crucial battle of the ego against the other, something that we all face. How much attention should we give those around us? Are we not giving enough? Are we giving too much?
In all, it’s a wonder that Løgstrup isn’t read more widely outside of Denmark. The Ethical Demand predates many debates in the ethical literature to which it could provide viable solutions by many decades. Here is a Christian ethics without the need for a god – what could resonate better among western nations still struggling with post-theocratic ethical morass. Unfortunately, Løgstrup was probably just writing in the wrong place, in the wrong language, at the wrong time. Here’s to hoping for a brighter future for Løgstrupian ethics.
https://jdcloughblog.wordpress.com/20...
November 1, 2021
In The Ethical Demand, Løgstrup sets out to define an ethic based on the proclamation of Jesus in secular or 'purely human' terms. The project is to describe a metaphysics based on what it means for human beings to live with each other. This, in turn, entails a phenomenology of the various forms of love, in search of the kind of ethical love that Jesus may have meant with 'love thy neighbor.' Løgstrup finds that human beings are 'delivered unto each other', are ultimately vulnerable in each other's presence, and that this places an 'ethical demand' on individuals, who must make sense of what it means to love another person.
This may sound esoteric, but is quite similar to Kant's project in The Metaphysics of Morals and Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. However, whereas Kant arrives at the position that ultimately morality should be rational, Løgstrup founds his project on love. (To me, this adheres more to what it is actually like to attempt to be a good person among others.)
Løgstrup's project is admirable and his analysis is deeply original, but the structure of the book, as well as his casual references to Luther, Kierkegaard, and Danish contemporaries, can be hard to follow. I do not speak Danish, so I can't comment on the translation, but it seemed consistent throughout.
I would recommend this book to anyone familiar with the challenge of reading a philosophy book and who is interested in the topic of ethics, but finds something missing in the rationalist approaches of deontology and consequentialism.
This may sound esoteric, but is quite similar to Kant's project in The Metaphysics of Morals and Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. However, whereas Kant arrives at the position that ultimately morality should be rational, Løgstrup founds his project on love. (To me, this adheres more to what it is actually like to attempt to be a good person among others.)
Løgstrup's project is admirable and his analysis is deeply original, but the structure of the book, as well as his casual references to Luther, Kierkegaard, and Danish contemporaries, can be hard to follow. I do not speak Danish, so I can't comment on the translation, but it seemed consistent throughout.
I would recommend this book to anyone familiar with the challenge of reading a philosophy book and who is interested in the topic of ethics, but finds something missing in the rationalist approaches of deontology and consequentialism.
January 30, 2018
after reading this book, i enjoyed how logstrup effectively communicated a phenomenological account that emphasised the importance of the ethical experience over ethical principles which made his work a refreshing philosophical and theological read
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews