Ritröð Guðfræðistofnunar - 01.01.2007, Page 35

difference between The Ethical Demand and System and Symbol is that in the
latter book Logstrup does not only regard the structures of human existence
as the ontological foundation of ethics, but rather ‘cosmos’ or ‘the universe’,
i.e. reality as a whole. But as is the case in 1956, there is a gap between the
basic ethical phenomenon - in this case cosmic equality - on the one hand,
and concrete ethical decisions and social action on the other. Cosmic equal-
ity, Logstrup says, conditions every kind of political equality, but we cannot
deduce concrete norms of equality from it.
Reciprocity
Let me finally touch upon one further issue. Logstrup very strongly emphasis-
es the one-sidedness of the demand, and hence the exclusion of reciprocity:
... the absoluteness of the demand ... creates th[e] ethical decision, and this is
why all ideas of reciprocity ... are excluded. (Logstrup 1997, 157).
This emphasis seems to make the ethics of the demand incompatible with
much contemporary social and political philosophy. Thus, John Rawls in a
way makes reciprocity the basic normative feature in his theory of justice
and political philosophy in general. But what does Logstrup’s rejection of
reciprocity entail? The demand is one-sided in the sense that I ought to un-
selfishly act to the best of the other regardless of whether or not I can expect
him or her to act in a similar way against me. But nevertheless, I think there
is a reciprocity in the ethics of the demand at a deeper level, viz. in the very
structure of interpersonality or interdependence. The demand arises from the
interconnectedness of self-exposure and power:
... the communication between persons ... always involves the risk of one
person daring to lay him or herself open to the other in the hope of a response.
(17).
Communication means self-surrender because it involves expectations to the
other person. This gives power to the other because expectations can be either
fulfilled/met or frustrated. Now the demand is silent in regard to how to care
for the other. The individual has to use his or her imagination, insight, un-
derstanding of life etc. - but also his or her knowledge about the expectation