Limits on Our Responsibility for Others Levinas - Essay Example

Are there, according to Levinas, any limits on our responsibility for others? Term paper May 7251 words (The of the University) Are there, according to Levinas, any limits on our responsibility for others? Introduction If one takes a close look at the human civilization, one can not help noticing that it features a considerable number of characteristic features. One of them is the peculiar role that is attributed to Ethics. The latter is considered to be an effective tool that is able to differentiate right from wrong. That is why one of the peculiarities of the human nature is the need to define the right course of action. As a result, numerous scholars have investigated the issue, providing their personal positing concerning the above mentioned. In addition to that, Ethics also helps to shape the understanding of responsibility that people have. This paper will explore the views of Emmanuel Levinas concerning responsibility of the people and argue that there are no limits on our responsibility for others. In order to prove this, the paper will carefully examine several notions. First of all, it will investigate the idea of the so called bad conscience, highlighting the origins of it, the fundamental elements as well as relationship between ethics, moral experience and rationality and reflection in order to show the limits of responsibility. Secondly, the paper will analyze the idea that people have innate knowledge about morality and is simply being amplified by the external principles; therefore, the scope of responsibility can be sensed by heart. Finally, the paper will examine the concept of face-to-face, it meaning and application as well as functions, proving that there are no limits when it comes to responsibility for others. The universal responsibility is conditioned by the concept of bad conscience When one examines the legacy of Levinas, one will be able to see that it often relies on the concept of bad conscience. The latter, in its turn, is influenced by the views of Dostoevsky that were expressed in his The Brothers Karamazov. Indeed, the characters of this book often think that they are responsible for the sins of their friend and relatives: for example, Alyosha is convinced that it is his faults that Dmitri and Ivan are not able to live proper lives. In spite of the fact that such position may be rather surprising for the people, it represents the humanitarian approach towards life: all people are connected. Therefore, the concept of bad conscience argues that a person is responsible for the behavior of other people, though this connection may not be a direct one1. In other words, all people in the world are united; so a misdemeanor of one is partially fault of a different person. Levinas continues this idea, proving that people should not only feel responsible for the actions of others, but may even experience guilt. This can be easily explained on an example: while the public condemns terrorists as well as their actions, it fails to acknowledge that to a certain extent it is also responsible for terroristic acts. Here is another example: in spite of the fact that the children of Africa who live in extreme poverty may be thousand miles away from those who live in the developed and prospering countries, the population of the latter should not use distance as an excuse not to help them. In general, this position provides an effective ground for solution of the global problems. Philosophically speaking, Levinas suggests that one should acknowledge the primary of Ethics over ontology; in this case the scope of responsibly as well as the lack of limits becomes apparent. Indeed, Ethics and morality provide people with various imperative how to live a good life. However, these imperatives should not be applied in theory exclusively. They should be incorporated in the daily life of the people so that they will be more concerned about their responsibility for others than their own personal life. The above mentioned position has several important implications that should be analyzed in great detail. First of all, Levinas points out that if one stands on the premise that there are no limits to the responsibility, moral experience should be seen as having supremacy over rationality. Indeed, the latter is though to be guiding actions of the people in their daily life. A good example of approach that heavily relies on it is Utilitarianism. The latter would note that the position that is being advocated by Levinas is ridiculous as it does not have any benefits for a person. However, the philosopher in question would dismiss this claim, pointing out that when as far as morality is concerned it should be seen as more important if compared to rationality. The next implication that should be taken into consideration is the idea of reflection. The latter is something that every person experiences. Some people put a tremendous emphasis on it, allowing it to guide a considerable part of their lives. However, it would not be an exaggeration that expanding the scope of responsibility beyond any imaginable limits goes against the reflection that a person may experience. In any case, one is likely to experience some sort of resistance when it comes to feeling responsibility for others so much. Nevertheless, Levinas would insist that the concerns about morality should override any opposition that might be generated in the course of reflection. All this leads to the understanding that people should experience ultimate responsibility when it comes to relationships with other individuals. The innate sense of moral imperatives Another interesting part of the view that is being developed by Levinas is the connection that he draws between the objective moral principles and subjective experience of them. According to him, people are born with the right understanding of morality in their hearts2. This might be seen as a convincing proof of the fact that on the whole people would support the idea that responsibility to be expanded beyond limits. In other words, any knowledge about the morality, including about the issue in question, only reflects the knowledge that people are born with. The philosopher points out that all moral imperatives that people may agree on are already in the heart of a person, including those which are not widely practices, for example universal responsibility. Furthermore, Levinas suggests that innate understanding that some moral principles are able to be go against our rational instincts and inclinations. Indeed, this provides the necessary room for the understanding that sometimes following the path of morality is able to counter the rationality and numerous other external factors. However, this opposition should not be seen as a sign of the fact a person is moving in a wrong way, but it should be regarded as an unfortunate, yet inevitable requirement of moral conduct. In other words, though the idea of universal responsibility may be opposed by rationality, the innate sense should be recognized as a valid evidence of its correctness. With this in mind, the philosopher in question sees the conventional morality as well as Ethics in general as a knowledge that simply points the way and adjusts the direction of the innate inclination of the human nature. This means that people who feel responsibility for others not because it is considered to be a moral thing to do, but because it is in our nature and morality simply acknowledges this as a fact. As a result, the morality is recognized as a mirror of the human soul that is good and which strives to help others. So, the most logical thing to do is to get any doubts out of the way and make sure that the natural desire of the people is satisfied. However, it would not be a mistake to suggest that in many cases people may be deaf to the call of their nature and refuse to feel responsibility for others. This is when the knowledge about morality becomes extremely important. For those who were able to reach harmony with their inner self, the moral behavior is partially synonym to their normal behavior. Nevertheless, some people may feel the need to be persuaded to act in a certain way. That is why the moral knowledge serves an important function of encouraging people to act in a correct manner and exercise their responsibility that is applied to all the people around. This is particularly important as the majority of the people needs to be encourages to behave in a proper way. There is one interesting aspect that is being noted by Levinas. He argues that sometimes affiliation to a particular religion may actually place limits on the ability of the people to feel the universal responsibility. Indeed, while the majority of the religious teachings are devoted to making life of the people more spiritually rewarding, the way they are actually being practiced by the believer might distort the original message to a certain extent. This means that some might feel the need to help their brothers and sisters in faith first and then pay their attention to others. Levinas condemns such approach, arguing that it goes against the universal experience of humanity and does not reflect the fundamental goal of religion properly. The concept of face-to-face interaction Several times in the works by Levinas one is able to see the tremendous emphasis that the philosopher in question places on the idea of face-to-face interaction. That is why it may be particularly important to analyze this notion. Thus, a face is might be recognized in two different ways. On the one hand, it refers to another person, namely anyone other than the subject3. It also implies the necessary physical presence of another person so that the face-to-face interaction could be achieved. This means that any conversation that people have might be regarded as a form of the above mentioned kind of interaction. Therefore, if this concept is essential for the understanding, the idea of universal responsibility becomes apparent: it is derived from interaction with other people. On the other hand, the notion of face may be regarded as a metaphor for the existence of a different party. Indeed, if one limits the perception of it to the first aspect only, any kind of written conversation will not be regarded as face-to-face interaction. However, there are many instances when this was the only possible form of communication between people and it had a tremendous impact on their personalities. What is more important is that the presence of another party should not be limited to one other person only: a single individual might interact with the entire world in various ways, facilitating effective face-to-face interaction. Therefore, it proves the idea of the universal principle of responsibility, removing the limit from the number of people who potentially can be engaged. When it comes to a careful examination of the framework which was developed by Levinas, one is able to observe the opposition to the widely accepted principle of intention. Thus, the philosopher in question argues that the idea of face has nothing to do with the intentions of the subject. In order words, it is not in direct relationship with the human intentions. So the latter can not create or destroy a face as it exists beyond their power. This means that the principle of universal responsibility is able to unite different faces and this is likely to have a positive impact on the interaction between the people in general. Finally, one should pay a particular amount of attention to the fact that the concept of face should not be closely connected to a physical person, as it was mentioned above. There are several reasons to that. First of all, it may not be fully characterized by a particular individual. In other words, if one draws a strong connection between a face and a person, one will inevitable fail to understand the former in its entire complexity. Secondly, a face cannot be represented by a single person as it may also stand for a group of people. Therefore, the concept in question is a rather complex one and should be carefully examined. Keeping this in mind, one is able to see that adherence to universal responsibility provides a person with a correct understanding of the entire framework of face-to-face interaction. The function of face-to-face interaction The previous paragraphs show that the idea of idea of face-to-face interaction is an essential one when it comes to understanding the legacy of Levinas. Therefore, it may be particularly useful to devote a sufficient amount of attention to the function that is performed by it. To begin with, one should note that every person feel a natural demand for face-to-face interaction. If one draws a connection between this and responsibility, one will be able to understand that these two notions are closely connected and the scope of the latter should be expanded to an infinite number of people. In other words, people are born with a need to interact with others, but this interaction also brings responsibility. As a result any relationship that a person develops during one’s life should relation on the latter. Levinas also points out that face-to-face interaction is directly connected to the be-ing of a person. He argues that an individual represents oneself with the help of speaking which is one of the primary forms of the above mentioned interaction4. In other words, the mere existence of a person may not be recognized as a fully accepted existence – it should be acknowledged by other people. Of course, it is quite understandable that a person will not cease to exist (in physical sense) if there is no one around; however, from a philosophical point of view one can hardly become a human without the presence of other people around. Thus, the mechanism with the help of which people acknowledge the existence of others is responding to the initial call which was made by them. Indeed, any interaction implies that there will be an initiator of it and the other party that responds. In spite of the fact that over the course if it, the role might change several times, the very first exchange is clearly divided into two stages: when the message is prepared and when the message is send. That is why by merely responding to anything that another person does, we acknowledge the existence of one. With this in mind, one should note that this puts a burden of responsibility on a person: if our response is so important, then there is a universal duty of interaction with anyone who needs this. This, in its turn, contributes to the emergence of the framework of responsibility. Nevertheless, it is quite understandable that this does not require a person to talk to everyone who one sees. That would be just ridiculous. Levinas suggests that the mere presence of a different person enables an individual to understand one’s existence. This is explained through opposition of I and myself. Thus, when a person does not interact with other, one is able to experience on the latter. However, in case of communication with another person, one is able to see that there is I that is present in the world. This means that face-to-face interaction performs and extremely important function and, therefore, should be seen as responsibility that stretches to all the people in the world. Conclusion Having examined all the points which were presented in the paragraphs above, one is able to see that in the view of Levinas there are no limits on our responsibility for others. This can be explained by a number of reasons. First of all, one should engage the concept of bad conscience. It originated in the aesthetic framework of Dostoevsky who depicted his characters responsible for the faults of others. Levinas was able to develop this idea and argues that every person is not only responsible, but is guilty of the sins of others. In order to understand this, one should acknowledge the primary of Ethics over ontology. Moreover, this also implies that sometimes moral experience may go against rationality or reflection; however, the former should not be dismissed on this premise. Secondly, Levinas noted that people are born with the innate knowledge of the fact that there are no limits to one’s responsibility as this is easily felt by one’s heart. Furthermore, this natural knowledge is able to justify the opposition between the concept and rationality. Finally, the philosopher in question introduces the framework of face-to-face interaction, suggesting that it has a crucial influence on the very existence of a person. Therefore, if interaction matters so much, this should be regarded as universal responsibility that is performed by the people. References Cohen, R. Face to Face with Lévinas. Albany, NY: State U of New York, 1986. Katz, C. Emmanuel Levinas: Beyond Levinas. London: Routledge, 2005. Levinas, E. Emmanuel Levinas: Basic Philosophical Writings. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1996. Llewelyn, J. Emmanuel Levinas the Genealogy of Ethics. London: Routledge, 1995. Read More