Seite 69 [69]
What must I do (and why me)? | 67
war against nature and the inordinate destruction of living beings has
had even graver consequences.
Not for nothing does Hans Jonas describe the new situation by means
of the changed role of technology. “... techne”, he writes, “was a
measured tribute to necessity, not the road to mankind’s chosen role — a
means with a finite nature of adequacy to well-defined proximate ends.
Now, techne in the form of modern technology has turned into an
infinite forward-thrust of the race, its most significant enterprise, in
whose permanent, self-transcending advance to ever greater things the
vocation of man tends to be seen, and whose success of maximal control
over things and himself appears as the consummation of his destiny-“
Jonas uses this to conclude that the sphere of ethics should be extended
to activities previously considered neutral and purely instrumental from
an ethical standpoint. “If the realm of making has invaded the space of
essential action, then morality must invade the realm of making, from
which it has formerly stayed aloof and must do in the form of public
policy. Public policy has never had to deal before with issues of such
inclusiveness and such lengths of anticipation. In fact, the changed
nature of human action changes the very nature of politics.””’
How does politics relate to this? The nature of technological systems
makes it impossible for us as individuals to influence their operation.
Insofar as the restoration of moral autonomy is not possible without
retaking control over the technological (economic and communicative)
systems, this has to happen through politics. A moral obligation has
formed that can only be met by those involved in the management of
public affairs, politics. This recognition, let us say, is not in the least new.
However, the majority of modern authors have insisted on the separation
of the spheres of ethics and politics. Jonas’ arguments prove that this
position has become untenable in the age of technical civilisation.
‘The decisive change has taken place in the relation of man and
nature, however: this has turned from a purely technical issue into the
gravest ethical problem. As it turns out, nature is not invulnerable and
its treasures are not inexhaustible: they are not available to each new
generation as hitherto. Therefore, technology and what it produces — in
brief, what we are doing to nature — can no longer be indifferent in an
ethical sense, but rather qualifies as good or bad. According to Jonas,
however, the good and bad deeds related to this differ in several
3 Hans Jonas: The Imperative of Responsibility, Ibid. p.9.