Nigel Biggar
Autore di Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning
Sull'Autore
Nigel Biggar is Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford, where he also directs the McDonald Centre for Theology, Ethics, and Public Life. His other books include Burying the Past: Making Peace and Doing Justice after Civil Conflict and Aiming to Kill: The Ethics mostra altro of Suicide and Euthanasia. mostra meno
Fonte dell'immagine: Oxford University Faculty of Theology
Opere di Nigel Biggar
Reckoning with Barth: Essays in Commemoration of the Centenary of Karl Barth's Birth (1988) — A cura di — 19 copie
The revival of natural law : philosophical, theological, and ethical responses to the Finnis-Grisez School (2000) — A cura di — 8 copie
Theological politics: A critique of 'Faith in the city', the report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on… (1988) 3 copie
Opere correlate
The Authority of the Gospel: Explorations in Moral and Political Theology in Honor of Oliver O'Donovan (2015) — Collaboratore — 17 copie
God, Ethics and the Human Genome: Theological, Legal and Scientific Perspectives (2009) — Collaboratore — 10 copie
Etichette
Informazioni generali
- Sesso
- male
Utenti
Recensioni
Premi e riconoscimenti
Potrebbero anche piacerti
Autori correlati
Statistiche
- Opere
- 15
- Opere correlate
- 5
- Utenti
- 359
- Popolarità
- #66,805
- Voto
- 3.9
- Recensioni
- 4
- ISBN
- 38
Biggar is Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral and Pastoral Theology at Oxford University as well as an historian of some note.
He seeks, by looking at various historical events involving the British Empire, to assess whether the actions involved during what most people will if only for convenience call the colonisation decades, warrant a view that they were, or more relevantly, the British (however that may be defined) of the Crown (again, however that may be defined) could or should be held to be morally culpable.
His assessment is invariably 'no'.
That conclusion seems at odd with many widely held views (which may not of course be validly held) but it is certainly, on one view, 'convenient', but I suggest may not be a complete (or at least an unnecessarily narrow, and irrelevant, viewpoint.
He manages this by 3 methods:
1. Biggar defines his quest by reference to the British Empire, not the individuals that may have acted under the umbrella (thought in many cases without the explicit support or indeed knowledge of the Empire). Thus Biggar is able to conclude, that whatever those other rogues may have undertaken, such was not authorised, sanctioned by or supported by the Empire and in some cases without the prior knowledge of the Empire (whether viewed by the local representatives of the Empire, but certainly by the the equivalent of 10 Downing Street) and in most if not all cases directly against various formal orders, declarations etc for the colonists to have regard to the Indigenous peoples found and to obtain their consent or at least acquiescence to what the colonists were to do.
2. Defining relevant immoral or reproachable acts as being those of the Empire and not by anyone else. This is in part due to the enquiry that Biggar sets up in the beginning ie a moral reckoning of the Empire's actions in undertaking colonisation. On one view that can be explained by the fact that Biggar could hardly make an assessment as to individual's actions, even in one colony eg Australia. But by doing so, it diverts attention away from the issue of whether people adversely affected nevertheless deserve some assistance/ recourse?
3. Emphasising the efforts of the Empire in dismantling eg slavery as well as the benefits that colonisation has brought to colonies eg (western) culture, technology, education, etc. As to the first, moving to dismantling slavery does not of itself negate prior discretions. As to the second, western advantages may not be all they are sometimes be made out to be. Though it is admitted that given where we have got to, the way of the west may well be the dominant mileu. Even so, there is a very sense that western views have been imposed on Indigenous peoples ie without consent and at the very least some views that that has to been to their detriment.
So whilst on a technical level the Empire may not be morally culpable for some of the things that have happened, is it still not possible that people should feel compelled (not by reason of being liable) to assist those who are suffering for whatever reason.
To put that a different way, rather than talking as to whether reparations are due to affected peoples for past injustices (the old saw of a briton saying they are happy to contribute to reparations to peoples colonised in the last 3 centuries once the reparations from the romans invasion of Britain all those years ago start to flow), is not the way to approach this is to consider whether people need/deserve assistance regardless of the reason for such (which may include colonization) and without making it a condition precedent to such assistance being made available that there be a prior moral failure?
Big Ship
8 April 2024… (altro)