Bernhard Waldenfels

Die 4. Auflage bringt zunächst die Kommentierung der Präambel und der Art. 1 bis 19 auf den aktuellen Stand von Judikatur und Literatur. Die grundlegende Struktur des Kommentares wurde beibehalten und um neuere Entwicklungen wie die Implikationen der Europäisierung und Digitalisierung sowie der Corona-Pandemie ergänzt.Die Herausgeberschaft des Kommentares hat ab der 4. Auflage Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf übernommen. Auch im Autorenkreis sind personelle Veränderungen zu verzeichnen: Mit Ausnahme von Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, Alexander Thiele und Ferdinand Wollenschläger, die bereits an der 3. Auflage mitgewirkt haben, liegen die Kommentierungen in den Händen neuer Autorinnen und Autoren.Der Kommentar erscheint in drei Bänden und wird nur geschlossen abgegeben.Der Grundgesetz-Kommentar ist Bestandteil des Moduls Verfassungsrecht PREMIUM, das bei beck-online.de erhältlich ist.

Responsive ethics stands out against every sort of communicative ethics merely orientated towards common aims, general norms, and utility calculation. It is based on a clear contrast between being responsible for what one has done and responding to the Other′s appeal and claim. The logic of response includes aspects like temporal delay, inevitability, gifts and freedom arising from elsewhere. Both – being responsible for and responding to – meet through the Third Party which intervenes in terms of habits and rules, yet without being able to cover the extra-ordinary demands of the Other. Responsive ethics defends the unsocial within sociality

This chapter covers the traditional role of responsibility, and the possible connections between response and responsibility. These connections are explored through the advance of trust and the surplus of the extraordinary in relation to the Third Party. The idea of responsibility comes from the sphere of juridical law, and has a theological touch. The classical conception presented suffers from a permanent erosion that is reinforced by systemic constraints. Trust is a natural element of every community that is together applied by common aims in life. The phenomenon of trust refers to the bond, the nexus, which holds together the members of a community, creating the requisite solidarity. The term ‘trust’ or ‘confidence’ should not primarily read as a substantive, but as a verb or as the derivative of a verb. Furthermore, it is noted that the responsive ethics proposed could function as a permanent corrective.

The controversial relation between philosophy and rhetoric depends on the assessment of speech. As long as the representative function and the objective of truth have a dominating role, the question, who says something to others and how, is placed behind the question what someone says. A dialogue reigned by one sole logos tends to become a monologue with shifting roles. This view changes, if the dialogue presents itself as a polyphonic speech, as illustrated by Bachtin in his novel theory. The rhetoric develops an individual weight within philosophical thinking as soon as the Other also shapes the speech as an addressee and as an addresser, when one’s own speech is understood as an answer to external appeals, and when all speaking comes by hearsay. Response logic, as proposed in responsive phenomenology, carries moments such as the asymmetry between myself and the others, the singularity of speech events, the inevitability of response, the time shift between appeal and answer, as well as the indispensable role of a third party equaling the unequal. Response scenes such as greeting, confession or lament reveal an ethical potential of bodied speech below the threshold of norms.

The author calls phenomenological intentionality, into question while taking it, nevertheless, as a starting point. From the analysis of the meaning of phenomena he goes back to a pathic dimension which precedes them. What happens to us or affects us and to what we respond in different ways cannot be reduced to previous horizons. Between pathos and response, there is an irreducible cleft which constitutes a special sort of time-lag. What happens to us comes is always too early; our responses always come too late. Our experience is never completely up to date. In order to explore this pre-semantic and pre-pragmatic depth of experience we need a sort of responsive reduction, which guides all meaning toward something we respond to. In conclusion, the author evokes some areas in which such a revision of phenomenology shows its effects, namely the genesis of life in bioethics, the historical elaboration of memory and the experience of the Other.

Si definimos la experiencia de lo ajeno -siguiendo a Husserl- como la «accesibilidad de lo que es originariamente inaccesible", ¿cómo podremos hacerlo accesible sin encerrarlo en los círculos del egocentrismo, logocentrismo y eurocentrismo, es decir sin anular lo ajeno apropiándonos de ello? La etnología como ciencia de lo otro cuya ambigüedad puede comprenderse en la obra de Lévi Strauss y en los comentarios de Merleau-Ponty sobre ella, nos ayuda a responder esta pregunta señalando el campo intercultural. Cuando tomamos lo ajeno como provocación a la que respondemos siendo incapaces de decir de manera completa lo que es, se abre una nueva perspectiva.

Certamente, desde que o ser humano existe, a vida nunca esteve isenta de manipulação técnica. Todavia, formas recentes de biotecnologia vão mais longe, tendendo a tornar indiscernível as distinções clássicas entre crescimento natural e produção artificial. Ars sive natura, este poderia ser o novo slogan. Neste sentido, em oposição à bioética corrente que tenta compensar o monismo tecnológico através de um dualismo prático, discutiremos a idéia de que, quando age sobre o Outro (Fremdeneinwirkung), a biotecnologia nunca é puramente técnica, sendo imediatamente prática, ética e política. Por outro lado, confrontada com novos desafios tecnológicos, a fenomenologia necessita assumir certas características de fenomenotecnologia; ações não são nunca meramente práticas. Uma tal combinação entre fenomenologia e fenomenotecnologia abre especiais perspectivas no que diz respeito ao trato da questão da vida humana. Primeiramente, descreveremos o eu corporal como gerador de sua própria história, na medida que evidencia graus de identidade e se constitui como altamente vulnerável. Em segundo lugar, distinguiremos entre a atitude técnica, restrita ao fato de que algo se modifica, e a atitude terapêutica, que se dirige a alguém que sofre: o paciente. A seguir, ultrapassaremos os limites do enquadramento clínico ao considerar novas conquistas no que diz respeito à produção da vida (por exemplo, clonagem e manipulação genética). Antes de simplesmente argumentar pró ou contra, temos de indagar o que significa produzir um eu vivo. Neste contexto, o tempo da poiesis será contrastado com o do pathos. Examinaremos o lugar desde o qual um ser vivo ou pessoal pode ser definido como alguém em si, e pretendemos tencionar simultaneamente o caráter paradoxal de atribuição de um eu ao Outro (Fremdezuschreibung), que assemelha-se ao paradoxo de ter a experiência do Outro como Outro (Fremderfahrung). Pois a pré-história e a pós-história de um alguém específico, incluindo nascimento e morte, é apenas acessível a nós em termos de substituição. Reduzidos a conjuntos de células, seres humanos seriam liberados de tudo isto. Restaria algo sobre o que falamos, mas de modo algum alguém falando a nós. PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Biotecnologia. Terapia. Fenomenologia. Fenomenotecnologia. ABSTRACT Certainly, as long as human beings exist, life has never been exempt from technical manipulations. However, recent forms of biotechnology go further, tending to blur the classical distinction between natural growth and artificial production. Ars sive natura, that may be the new slogan. Now, in opposition to current bioethics which try to compensate the technological monism by means of a practical dualism, we will argue that by acting upon the Other (Fremdeinwirkung) biotechnology is never purely technical, it is immediately practical, ethical and political. On the other side, faced with new technological challenges, phenomenology needs certain features of phenomenotechnology; actions are never merely practical. Such an intertwining of phenomenology and phenomenotechnology opens up special perspectives in dealing with the issue of human life. Firstly, we will describe the bodily self as generating its own history, as showing grades of selfhood and as being highly vulnerable. Secondly, we will distinguish between the technological attitude, restricted on something to be changed, and the therapeutic attitude, addressed to somebody suffering, namely the patient. In the end, we cross the limits of the clinical frame by considering new attempts of life production (e.g. cloning and gene manipulation). Before simply arguing pro and con we have to ask what does it mean to produce a living self. In this context the time of poiesis will be contrasted with the time of pathos. We will examine the place from where a living or personal being may be defined as somebody in itself, and we will simultaneously stress the paradoxical character of ascribing the status of a self to the Other (Fremdzuschreibung), which resembles the paradox of experiencing the Other as an Other (Fremderfahrung). At last, the pre-history and the post-history of a oneself, including birth and death, is only accessible for us by means of substitution. Reduced to cell ensembles, human beings would get rid of all that. There would be left something we speak about, but by no means somebody speaking to us. KEY WORDS – Biotechnology. Therapy. Phenomenology. Phenomenotecnology