Abstract

In the wake of such recent atrocities as ethnic cleansing and apartheid, various persons have pursued an interest in reconciliation in public discourse. That interest has been challenged by others who argue that reconciliation belongs simply to the spheres of private and/or religious relations. This objection that presumes an account of reconciliation that is grounded most directly in the theologies of Augustine and Luther. Without challenging the validity of that account, I argue that reconciliation has roots in the western tradition of ethics that are broad and diverse. I do so by appealing to the work of two major figures: Immanuel Kant and St. Thomas Aquinas. While their writings are neglected in the literature on reconciliation, I show that reconciliation is constitutive of the way that each thinks about the moral life. Indeed, reconciliation is a hermeneutic key to their moral theories as a whole. ;In part one, I develop Kant's account of reconciliation. In chapter one, I attend to Kant's critique of a theology of cheap grace and trace his development of a positive critique of forgiveness that affirms the need for justifying grace. I then characterize the logic and structure of Kantian reconciliation in view of his commitment to universality. In chapter two, I examine Kant's social ethics and, specifically, the duties of justice and love. Kant's religious writing, I show, illumine his social ethics as an ethics of reconciliation wherein the unbending exercise of retributive justice coheres, paradoxically, with a reconciling love that seeks the happiness of an offender. ;In part two, I characterize Thomas' account of reconciliation. In chapter three, I describe the theological framework that is presupposed by his moral theology, amplifying the centrality therein of the theme of restoration. In chapter four, I treat Thomas' social ethics, examining specifically the operations of charity, mercy and justice against the background of his specific theology. I show that reconciliation emerges as an overarching theme of his social moral thinking. ;I conclude with a brief assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of these two proposals for reconciliation