Abstract

SUMMARYPeter Jonkers' paper ‘Justifying Sacrifice’ presents a subtle and nuanced defence of the ethical paradigm of sacrifice as offering up ‘for the sake of’ another item or principle. He employs Hegel and Levinas for this purpose. While Jonkers presents his position as in basic agreement with the position of John Milbank in his paper ‘Midwinter Sacrifice’, I claim that the two positions are, in fact, diametrically opposed. Milbank is proposing a radical critique of the ethical paradigm of sacrifice as the product of, and in collusion with, secular nihilism. Thus there is no justification of sacrifice ‘for the sake of’ for Milbank: certainly not in the forms presented by either Hegel or Levinas. Milbank's motive for such a strident rejection of such theories lies in his overarching theory of the secular as itself an illegitimate alternative theology. I conclude, however, that Jonkers can withstand the challenge of Milbank. Nevertheless, any adequate justification of the model of sacrifice needs to be augmented by an account of both its metaphysical underpinning and its symbolism