NEW SGHOOL FOR SOGIAL RESEARGH
Dr. Hans Jonag ‘ 66 WEST 127m STREET
9 Meadow Lane .
New Rochelle, New York
10805 OREGON 5-2700
NEW YORK,N. Y. 10011
w/r {Taw Hlaeetng er
THE GRADUATE FACULTY March 26, 1978
Professor Richard J, Rernstein a 2 . .
Department of Philosophy fo" Creflocmacticr
Haverford College 4
v
Dear Dick,
{I must disappoint you, Not only do 1 refuse to co-sponsor your
Committee for Civil Liberties in West Germany, put I condemn its whole
“idea as ill-advised and misdirected. J have not the time for @ proper
discussion, therefore just a few sybolic peredigms which may or may
not convey to you @ reasoned position behind them,
1. The egregious Russell Tribunal. My friend Giinther Anders in Vienna,
enthusiastic jury member at the two previous “trials" and not suspect
of any but far-left sympathies, wrote to me in December /1 translate
from the German_/1" 1 have resigned from the Russell Tribunal, together
with Robert Jungk /{ still among 'members of the jury' in your materiail_/
and have informed ali press agencies of my resignation. Not once heve
those people unequivocally distanced themselves from the terror scene,"
&s for me, 1 fail to understand why the Tribunal takes for its target,
of all things, the German Federal Republic, which with difficulty
defends itself against the pitiless terror, In the given line-up of
the fronts, this is in effect ~ willed or not ~ a *Sympeathisenten' act,
With no special love for the one side, 1 do know on which side my mortal
enemies stand (yours too, 1 believe). God knows, there is no lack of
worthier shooting targets, left and right. The, precariously enough ;
tight-rope balancing middle, where at least freedom has somehow still
a spece, ought to be spared. By its one-sided choice of targets, alweys
assured of a leftist claquey(never human rights or civil liberties in
a communist country), the Russel] Tribunal has forfeited a1] claims to
impartiajity, even to plain Gasemews integrity: they swim with the tide,
this time with a very cheep one in the non-German European left, who
from the sidelines rejoice in the discomfort of a capitalist system not
their own (but ask a German worker! ). American jibertarians, I am afraid,
inexperienced in the lesson of the Weimar xrepublic,which granted all
the liberties of the constitution to those bent on destroying it (and
reaped the destruction), are just bebes in thewood when it comes to the
exotic scene of European politics. (Pardonable there, but less so at
home ~ see point 3.)
2, Jurgen Habermas was first vilified, and incomparably more viciously,
by the student left in the late sixties ~ for not being radical enough
(as was Adorno et a1,), That does not, excuse his present vilification
from the opposite side. But it does show#here and what the real tergets
of worried libertarians should be: the extremes on both sides, the bene
of our unhappy century, not the embattled, shaky middle, And one is
permitted to ask: where were you ~ 1 meant American civil liberties
defenders - when Habermas and others where forced to flee the lecture
halls, many (Habermas himself) quitting teaching forever. 1 have heard
horrendous tales of the unspeakable, truly infamous persecution to
whi he ere expos don! ember champions j
to thekP tid Epes Pang YY fatter nae crete fheo phe reasoneeon such ©
NEW SGHOOL FOR SOGIAL RESEARGH
66 WEST 12rx STREET
NEW YORK, N.Y, 10011
OREGON 5-2700
4a
THE GRADUATE FAGULTY
tactful restraint at that time,
Bie To return once more to the Weimar memory and ‘babes in the wood’.
As Long as I see our civil libertarians - with nothing worse to remember
(bless their hgearts) than McCarthyism ~ fight for the right of the
greatest, unrepentent mass murderers in all history, NAZIS, to parade
their intent to repeat in the face of their designated victims ~~
as long as 1 see the idea of freedom thus perverted.and its scene
dominated by the Kunstlers of this world, I may be forgiven if I do not
wish to entrust any political cause to such hands, To fight for the
sacred right of German lawyers to serve as conduits between their clients
in prison and their terrorist friends outside,is Less perverse only in
degree - to the'terrible simplificateurs’ of liberty it is all the same,
so long as a case of 'repression' can be argued, without asking;
repression of what}
I would have much to say about numerous slanted statements and the
language of your INFo no.1, but have no time, But 1 do wonder whether
the privileged denizens of a territorial empire girdled dy two oceans
and never threatened by neighbours, can muster the imagination to put
themselves in the place of those with the Russian colossus at their
doorstepg, their community riddled with spies from their co-nationals
across the border, with subversion fostered and lavishly financed by
the DDR. Lacking that imagination and the will to make the effort for it,
the highminded solicitupfde for standards, so uniquely favored here by
circumstances, is (forgive me) arrogant. As a cruelly instructed ex-
European, I claim no merit for having an advantage there over your more
fortunate and more innocent kind, My point here is promped by simple
fairness, not by any personal involvement, As for my own person, I just
showtd add that since I severed ties in 1933, I do not feel responsible
for things German and for the level of liberty there; and if civil
servants (apropos Berufsverbot) are subject to more strictures of conduct |
and state loyalty there (as they have always been) than here, I couldn't
_care less, I also think that everybody should take on his own extremists,
not the other guy's - I for instance Mr, Begin. In that matter I have
a standing, a duty and a voice, I doubt that you and I have them in the
defence of the German constitution and in the time-extorted twists of its
day-to-day application. |
Dear Dick, this is a harsh letter, and you will not like my
language; but I am too old to mincd words, and I have seen too much
to be pleasant about it.
Cordially yours,
Plan foras
Hans Jonas
p.S, You.may share this letter with whomever you Like, P Hans Jonas
. 9 Meadow Lane
New Rachelle, New York
10805
Please send reply tor
Dy. Hans Staudinger
45 Sutton Placa South
How York, W.¥,. 10022
Junc 6, LOPS
or, Hane Jonas
9 Meadow Lane
Now Rochelle, NY, 10605
Dear Hand,
i am still under the spol, of your articlo, which I had to read
twice to realise AtLLy it's importance. Some authors Like to challenge
in thelr deliberations the postulates of authors, but do not like if thie
dua dono with thode own. 7 know that you ax not of thio typo. Therefora,
i sand you my notes, which I mado for whatever they say ba Worth.
in your section two you extracted formal and tradition charac
of Summ ebileal actions
1) the nonwiuman world was ethically neutrals
2)
ical algnificance velonged to the direct fooling of man
an (ebiics in auturoposentetic) 5
3) tho prox ¥, of good and evil actions ant ende pertain to
timo aa well as espace (email), (Long run left ta providence),
(in all the recurrent typical private and public Life »
altuations) ¢
4) @ll naxines are confined to the
tenth), (felLowman an end i
avidual goad to sea Gol
ting of actlons
piinate your
nm pood).
@ goneral statonants which T noted down you challenge
ularly cepa a phage cal view point. Let aside
etLou and take only the
go OP states ain rules, they aro sonie vod angence fer tholr
Long mia validity, Most af the people of this world today Live etii.
under dominant nationalistic ideas, inevitably, for them the atate of
the nation ie a value in itself as it-da tho “helongings" to it, ALL
these voncepta contain pox aay an Andefinite time span. Nain rules are
eatablighed to last. They ave"éxpectant oven to include future
taghnologieal and sooial changea. Tho stato ig, you will agree with mo,
of indefinite tine (only Hitler shortened 14 with hic 1000syeare Reteh).
Most of at's ethical norms have, ac I said before, indefinite validity,
the future generations ars poy ial dacluded,
Contd ane
ar Leties
“2m
Furthoron, the norma of the state are related to futuro, that
moans long run affects (lgyptien storages for the seven meagre YOURw,
the Lony gun atructure of the morcantillotic policy of the Absolute
atates oy the responsibility for the damages of windng) «
Knowledge and the duty to know tho ssorete of nature and the
world was a deriving force of the alchemiata and explorara to extend
the might of the rulax.
fhe noes of the states aentain @ deep reaponslbility to
Haature ag saemy and friend,( their farsight ia forests and sand,
poliay to tame nature and to guarantoe undor present sacrificaes future
advances) ,
{he selonces reveal rules for tho bebaviour of nature towards
rankind,, finally deatbroyang it on ear 7 ROW as cor the disaghrowst
natuwak’ peaotions agaduct anole disturbances oF agiur Ws dsveloped
balances. heir meaning wo never will understand, She action of sar
towards nature can only be understood from an antivoprocentric view
point. The moorp fight agadnet nature's unforeosanle acaumptiona of
power xouaing for the ynforsecable future even da tho eb HEEB OF
many veateicte the offects, "Selfpolied ged aight" bas
only a meaning from the point of view i of nan. The
anthreprocentvis continesent of former ¢ ming With ve ao long
ao ian oxiata.
in defense of the traditional classical ethies f ahell bint
only to Max Weborta jupistic gtudy of protestant obnice bi the
pronounecd soi quae of presence ia favor of future rewards.
I gave with these foregoing points a fow sorlvbled notes of
my remetions, I believe in my own nacrew yiow that many of the
Herinadplos" of yow athics aye in general terme mlatiar to th
tradition nacises, which according to you prav nes even L
pedluciplos, ; a@lone a ready dootrin YOUR PAPor,
page 39, at the and "no previous vy othe global
eondLiton o an Life and the farwoff Dy achetonue of
the pace, velativity of the censepica now UH nd! and Pohobaln
ave known, Ae tic anthropologiate demonatemato, LL vorld of the
teibse bad ohudlar womriage on geblons and acy. oLicotive af
our present iw wae upoh gur ethical norma of co, anbty 24,
therevore not coumotiy Lige, ib is theretore uot tho extent ow dimonsion
of action, whish not us, but the political structure of the soclotleg.
forner
2
f individualion wi
it ie the probable caply pasoios: period a
yvoversed the emphasia from th@ comaon ood ta the dividual good,
Jdmitdng and voukening therefore tho rosponsibilitica towards tho
Wiydefinkie" ef the human rage, Individualiaa introduses the short gun
concontxation of our action and foatered th uenee! Livongh
agechoratod conqueat of nature by nolance of tochnolouy. The reaction
Contd ave
f
|
|
|
o bm
of man to man changed, and partioulerly with regard to hie teuctions.
The competition betwoon th tribes tured inte @ compotition of nations,
and even wore of independent mon and their artificially organimed grapa
the ghange in the “uores! af ments colleotives ocourved with the over
aiged concepta of frecdom in all sphoves. Yet, thia did not change that
the otiLeal principle and norma of politiaal colloctives comained with
regard to @ long run outlook into the future. The dilemma of our tine
L8 more complicated. Bide by aide there exiat not only the principles of
the individualistic othics without definite guidamce and vuleg for their
competitive buhaviowr., Betweon nations and @uoag Individuals, and on the
other side tho natien concerns fox the long life exlatenes and aspoota.
‘Thig we may enll A pluralise of ethleal, partly contradictory norma, We
ars apoaing with different ethical) Languages in all recurrent typical
situations of peivate and publie Life, Byen in ene working day wo change
our othxtoal principles of asseciation ox of community life in our Liberal
adaptability to the suvroundings of our aotion.
Tt to ther
towards nature hicaonl normua to de
tagka, osology | suountrating usy but 1%
probhor wiathreatloc tive Lifo necesadt
a ons, This stato that the
areal obhical pra Low, P “thoke Long
thon dominant again and Hphads be onforced,
fmants vesponalbility
turbing global
Yhe problen of the "turntt trom the
pluralistic societies with conpetitive individuals towards a now Long
run international aud national planniug for indefinite future remains to
be wolved, Ae you seid, "fear can do the job", it is "sc atten the heat
aubetLliute for genuine vietue and wledom!t, But you digcarded this type of
“hokl.! bacause it "faila ua towards tho more distant proapcctal, But what
pewAie, aA new ot or tho frightening hnowledge? Whether tho detrimental
forebadings in our tine oan create an urge or an awakening of inetinet
for political action, national and intornational shortly before tt
eollapse of the Inman world arrives, Ac T aaid, off ve action demands
lal forms and theac now lagtructions ask again for
ethical norma, Growt): gatas overywhere eoon, to.
Under s aspirationg of inm
social and political
nations. Wo may
osauae of fear of
ont in oui
eulos an
Hits on OL. endey
> Cenatons inside and bet
sapons WiLL not bo ugeds b
ne the mowal conaiderationg of Trean
wlymifloanes and human righte, but only the avaroncan of maga distraction
of pooplos OL over the world, which have thoir refl ons to all nations,
that international cooperation oy bo the hopeful political end result.
Tho problex vomadnags, whether we nu: ot now proseriptions ia
vthica, competent to agaumc thelr guidance in nt action of global
dimengions, o whethor we need first a changs towards political
aubhoritarian rogimontatlon, for which @ now othica omn flavor Latoron
tho ideology for mere celiestive cohesion and conformity, Thig means,
however, & loss of our individualistic porson, trecdow and othies. There
Conta ve»
ig not moh to be compramiacd with regard ta tho hard cholo of there
directions,
Ono prediction can reasonably be mide today, that ac cariier
lmowLedge and oxperiones about the accolerated dotertoration of the
hunts and social conditione in all corners of thin carth are gathered
and it'g meanings and affegte vroadly underatood, the sufferinga of
boman mankind, some of these sufferings may be avoided and ondleoas
polltical clash pravonted,
T boca oven doubtful. whothar today a now ee ‘be
weiltton for our futuro norm, giving us fuitirs norma, wince we do not
know the dynantie of accelmration and the @ige of the emlamity. We
sannot epecnlate thorefero on the dog:
or on the regr.
o needed conformity and pregeure
loag of freodon on our tame, Can "ons write @ now
ondotings without knowing the ateacture of their
" can either write an “utopia? of dafterent degree of
collectivon, MO:
topror si tuatt
oS only queatione I
Ww to changes our
ing to be answored
m aspects of Lige
ration a5 it was the
fascinating prompeets of »
ly aod of wants prolone
ation wits bo solved o edting
Sonar sand throug ethical norscy a CUoee,
because we cannot fo: Je » gontradiotory worth of thease “dvelatons
fer a complete!
& biological
f oxpange
it in a paradox that we are at the Uhre fe towards a deceleration
ef the rates of growth and novertholeas face the groatnet dingact of the
dneroase in absolute growth, throwing out gear the balancoa with the
mature, botween nature and man and 4n wants prosent social evatons.
Sti1., Tan puasled Rot
# queatt
help to abort santa
dovantat, a late a worldwide avaroncas of responmible natlonal
and int Hon, That me that < S would besone a niaglonary
ulus. You say in your pa
2p @neweres of the
but To think
poof @ naw ethical
you have to
appoal.
poaLin!
es, from these Long deliverats
anewers from you. I would:
Hobog, vary dngurfielantiy
But T believe wo have to postpons
afore pore or lesa A scelbblt
ag, your readers are
ave Liked for 4 long tine
y to AiBouss with
that for the Pall. Tite
¢ down of pointsa which bother
yer porsonal
Asttor Ls t
ne.
Contd sas
With baat vrogards from house
you both and a sood summer,
$o houge, and dicen boat wishes for
‘
Yourg, |
Fans
«= Hiotated, tit due to noe
available sograttably
/evaa
Bern, October 21, 1973
My dear Hans Staudinger,
It is a great shame that I haven't answered far so ion#? your’
formidable letter @ June, waich reached me (with some delay) in
my summer retreat high up in the Alps. My only excuse is the very
weghtiness of your letter which demanded and still demands a commen-
surate answer: and fa this KE could not muster the time because that
time was preempted with toiling at the theoretical foundations of
precésely the ethics which to search far you declare as either
otiose (because it has always existed) or impossible (because "we
cannot even guess" what is ggod "for a completely changed tman'"),
Of course, I thoroughly agree with you that my essay is nothing but
the general exposition of a task to be performed, so much so irfeed,
that the attempted performing prevented me from debating your doubt
whether it can be or need be performed. For the proof of the pudding
is in the eating, and the pudding wasn't ready yet to let you have
a bite of it to try. I had been hoping these months for something
interme diate to be ready enough to send you as a specimen of what I
am trying to do, or for a sufficient breathing spell to write you a
decent ad hocy reply to the imporgtant points you raise. Both contin-
gencies eluded me, but the matter often preyed on my mind. Please
forgive me.
Today at least a token, and fkrst of all my warmest thanks for
the attention you gave to my essay and for the generous effort to
communicate to me your comments. You are certainly right with your
impression of something very unfinished. The piece in S$Rsis merely
the opening chapter ofa tractatus technolégico-ethicus I am working
on, and that with the omission of some quite imporgtant parts. One
of these missing parts (section IX) you will find enclosed here,
because it may meet some of the objections pu raise; at least it
deab with the longterm perspectives of traditional political ethics.
(K write the whole book, “Versuch iiber Ethik im Zeitaiter der Techno-
logie", in German to save time.) True, in some such matters as
forestry we have had practical care for the good of future genera-
tions in the past, on a modest scale. And the instincts for one's
posterity have always been strong especially on the familial level,
sometimes even with legal bulwarks like the Fideicommiss, not to
speak of dynastic provisions for “eternal” heredity. But I have been
concerned (perhaps not making that clear enough) with the condition
of ethical theory and confirmed ethical maxims - and there I defy ¥
you to show me anywhere from Aristotle to Kant that the principles
on which elkhics waa built do even derivatively entail, let alone
explicitly establish, a duty to consider in our present deeds the
remote future of the imago hominis on earth. You beg the question,
dear Hans, by saying "... will be solved eventually by the then
prevailing institutions and through their ethical norms, which we
cannot even guess, because we cannot foresee the contradictory worth
of these decisions for a completely changed 'tman'", Solved - of
course, one way or another. But don't you see that no previous
ethics counted with the eventuakity of a combetely changed "man"
(except by. divine intervention at the end of days) and therefore
none coukfraise the question whether such a change ought to be per-
mitted in the first place? And that, instead of taking its comkng
for granted as you seem to do, we must now (perhaps dust in time)
raise that very question in the face of possibilities never apparent
befare - unless we abdicate our responsibility with your hopeful
fatalism that somehow the future will take care of itself? (Or, in
mother context, with the sombre fatalism that "only the awareness
of mass destruction of peoples all over the worid" will bring mankini
to its senses - to my mind unfortunately the much stronger prospect,
at least in its first part!) As to the inability even to"guess",
—t11 send you right after my return in November a xerox of a chapter
on Biological Engineering, finissed this summer in advance @ éthers,
= Qo
in which you will see concretely illustrated what questions never
dreamt of before arise on the quasi-utopian frontiers of biological
science, and what a@tir ely novel ethical insights are forced into
the open by their anticipatory, guessing discussion. Whether they
can prevent anything I can hardlyyless sceptical of than you are.
Nevertheless! Lee
Equally question-begging, incidentally, is your assertion that
"the anthropocentric confinement of former ethics remains with us as
long as man exists" (the last clause having an ominous ring to me):
EI precisely raise the question whether this is still good enough
in view of the power man now holds over the fate of all ef life on
earth, If your assertion is a prediction of what will be the case,
it may be regrettably true; if an endorsement, it may be catastro-~
phically wrong. Anyway, I asked a simple engough moral and perhaps
metaphysical question: whether the fact of our power, present and
impending - as that of any human power - doesn't also constitute a
responsibility? If so, that responsibility, to fit the pow would
extend to the integrity of life beyond man. I grant you that this
makes sense only with some idea of the sanc{tity of life as such,
and that secular weason, as it presently understands itself, denies
proof for this premise. But then, why should human life be sacred?
why that of my fellownan? As a matter of anthropolbgical-historical
fact IT add, fordhat it is worth, that the exclusive anthropocentric
focus is a very specific judaeo-christian-mohammedan trait not
shared by a majority of mankind in space and time. (My contention
about "all former ethics" was provincial if all the faiths of mankind
are considered, but global with respect to rational doctrines of
ethics, which are very much a Western preserve. )
I trust, dear Hans, you wll understand that one engaged in
what he considers the most pressing task of his remaining time will
put off convincing anyone but himself that what he is doing need be
done and can be done, and rests his case on what he wiil finally
come up with, which then must speak for itself. So, please be patient
with me (I myself, believe me, am impatient enough with the progress
of my work) and grant me the advance faith that IT am not chasing
after a complete chimaera.
With renewed pleas for your forgiveness and my congratulations
for your latest honor, the Founders Medal,
Yours cordially
Plans L.
Hans Jonas
