Abstract: Non-metaphysical social ethics, which wishes to suppress an identification of the Humanum and the dignity of alternate human self-defining processes, challenges an ecumenically profiled answer to the question of justification and content of the highest value of an ethics of order. Questions of bioethics, of a just war, about an equitable division of scarce resources, amongst others, are to this end to be answered against a boundless liberality or collectivism on the basis of a common human idea of Christianity. An ecumenically profiled view first of all invites inter-confessional dialogue. On the other hand in the tradition proposed by Erasmus and Melanchthon and the understanding of Caritas of Pope Benedikt XVI., as well as a new-protestant yes to the salvation relevance of social ethics, we can strengthen ecumenical economic and social ethics as normative humanism in the sense of A. Rich against current non-Christian challenges.

Abstract: The question of the scope of advanced directives has been a crucial issue during the debate on the new German law on advanced directives in 2009. Yet in retrospect it shows that this was a problematic restriction of the debate. The far more complex ethical issues concern questions of how to interpret an advanced directive and of how to apply it to a present situation. This paper explores the communicative structures of autonomy and the temporal structure of advanced ethical judgments and applies them to these ethical issues. The author argues for relating the advanced directive to the presumed present will of a patient.

Abstract: The article aims to find plausible answers in the current debate of ethics of non-human animals. For this purpose it illustrates how Martha C. Nussbaum in her book »Frontiers of Justice« connects her theory of justice with her ethics of non-human animals. Nussbaum believes that human animals and nonhuman animals have similar dignity. Therefore she postulates to treat nonhuman animals like human animals as »subjects of justice«. Nussbaum also argues that her »capabilities approach«, which provides justice for human and nonhuman animals, is free of metaphysics. The article challenges this thesis and Nussbaum’s arguments.