When Dialogue Fails: Arguing With the Rabbi

{"It":[0,114],"has":[1,34,157],"conventionally":[2],"been":[3,35],"assumed":[4],"that":[5,13,15,152],"there":[6],"are":[7,177],"no":[8,16],"limits":[9],"to":[10,37,69,144],"ethical":[11,84,155,166,181,188],"discourse:":[12],"is,":[14],"matter":[17],"how":[18],"difficult":[19],"or":[20,168],"fraught":[21],"the":[22,44,78,89,105,122,125,133,138,142,200,205],"questions":[23,61],"being":[24],"asked":[25],"some":[26,75],"common":[27],"ground":[28],"can":[29],"always":[30],"be":[31,70],"found.":[32],"This":[33,72],"thought":[36],"arise":[38],"from":[39,180],"fundamental":[40,197],"shared":[41],"values":[42],"and":[43,59,64,81,101,104,137,204],"conditions":[45,79,201],"of":[46,48,77,107,124,175,185,199,202,208],"possibility":[47],"dialogue":[49,66,203],"itself.":[50],"Contemporary":[51],"events":[52],"have":[53],"put":[54],"this":[55,108],"assumption":[56],"in":[57,129],"doubt":[58],"raised":[60],"about":[62],"when":[63],"where":[65,159],"might":[67],"cease":[68],"possible.":[71],"article":[73,148],"examines":[74],"aspects":[76],"of,":[80],"obstacles":[82,135],"confronting,":[83],"discourse":[85,100],"today,":[86],"focusing":[87],"on":[88],"Kantian":[90],"model,":[91],"as":[92,164],"represented":[93],"by":[94,111,141,150],"Jurgen":[95],"Habermas,":[96],"which":[97,172],"emphasizes":[98],"rational":[99],"communicative":[102],"action,":[103],"critique":[106],"view":[109],"presented":[110],"Alphonso":[112],"Lingis.":[113],"traces":[115],"an":[116,187],"actual":[117],"dialogue-about":[118],"potential":[119],"justifications":[120],"for":[121,195],"actions":[123],"Israeli":[126],"Defence":[127],"Forces":[128],"Gaza-and":[130],"analyses":[131],"both":[132],"multiple":[134,173],"encountered":[136],"unsuccessful":[139],"attempts":[140],"protagonists":[143],"circumvent":[145],"them.":[146],"The":[147,183],"concludes":[149],"proposing":[151],"a":[153,196],"new":[154],"predicament":[156],"emerged":[158],"discourses":[160],"encounter":[161],"intractable":[162],"limits-characterized":[163],"\\"categorical":[165],"exclusion\\"":[167],"\\"ethical":[169],"homo":[170],"sacer\\"-in":[171],"groups":[174],"individuals":[176],"systematically":[178],"excluded":[179],"consideration.":[182],"emergence":[184],"such":[186],"singularity,":[189],"it":[190],"is":[191],"suggested,":[192],"may":[193],"call":[194],"re-examination":[198],"mutual":[206],"construction":[207],"meaning.":[209]}

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Published
2026-09-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-026-10618-9
Primary Topic
War, Ethics, and Justification
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

When Dialogue Fails: Arguing With the Rabbi

Paul A. Komesaroff
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
War, Ethics, and Justification
article

When Dialogue Fails: Arguing With the Rabbi

Paul A. Komesaroff
article en

Abstract

It has conventionally been assumed that there are no limits to ethical discourse: that is, that no matter how difficult or fraught the questions being asked some common ground can always be found. This has been thought to arise from fundamental shared values and the conditions of possibility of dialogue itself. Contemporary events have put this assumption in doubt and raised questions about when and where dialogue might cease to be possible. This article examines some aspects of the conditions of, and obstacles confronting, ethical discourse today, focusing on the Kantian model, as represented by Jurgen Habermas, which emphasizes rational discourse and communicative action, and the critique of this view presented by Alphonso Lingis. It traces an actual dialogue-about potential justifications for the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza-and analyses both the multiple obstacles encountered and the unsuccessful attempts by the protagonists to circumvent them. The article concludes by proposing that a new ethical predicament has emerged where discourses encounter intractable limits-characterized as "categorical ethical exclusion" or "ethical homo sacer"-in which multiple groups of individuals are systematically excluded from ethical consideration. The emergence of such an ethical singularity, it is suggested, may call for a fundamental re-examination of the conditions of dialogue and the mutual construction of meaning.

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Monash Health (AU), Monash University (AU)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
War, Ethics, and Justification
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.