Nächste Ausgabe

1/2025: Practices and institutions of solidarity - socio-ethical and political-theological perspectives

Solidarity is back – on the streets, in social salons and political speeches as well as in theoretical debates. After decades of the dominance of the neoliberal paradigm of privatization and sweeping modernization, the renaissance of the concept of solidarity is surprising for some and only logical for others. Others, on the other hand, diagnose an increased pressure to act responsibly out of solidarity with an overburdened society – and thus a new variant of neoliberalism. In particular, the diagnosis of an entrenched situation of multiple, overlapping crises initially makes recourse to solidarity seem plausible. Be it the coronavirus pandemic, the war in Ukraine and its (global) economic and political consequences, the ecological catastrophe, the precarious situation of refugees and migrants or the emergence of new polarization issues: Solidarity seems to be an eternal fountain of youth when it comes to addressing a common (emergency) situation and mobilizing the power of cohesion and thus the willingness of individuals to work together to overcome it.

However, it is noticeable that solidarity does not simply return in its classic forms as a movement of the trade union movement and as a social principle realized in welfare state institutions. Contemporary debates on solidarity in particular emphasize its controversial, contested, ambivalent character: How far does solidarity go in the face of the ongoing destruction of the planetary foundations of life? Who does it include and who does it exclude under the impression of continuing colonial and patriarchal conditions? What solidarity efforts are demanded of whom - for whose benefit? Who has access to solidarity institutions, should support them and benefits from them? To what extent are solidarizations accompanied by desolidarizations and are these inevitable processes? Contrary to an apparently existing intuitive plausibility in social contexts, the concept of solidarity today requires a contouring that also turns to forms and structures of solidarity other than the familiar ones.

This suggests focusing primarily on the relationship between practices and institutions of solidarity and, in doing so, proceeding with a particular sensitivity for contexts, inclusions/exclusions and social (power) relations. A contemporary understanding of solidarity can only be developed through a variety of perspectives and contexts and in relation to other key concepts and basic categories. The discussion builds on a long tradition of dealing with the topic of solidarity in political theologies and Christian social ethics. Against the backdrop of the current crises, this tradition needs to be continued, updated or even readjusted. This issue aims to make a contribution to this.

Editors: Michelle Becka, Bernhard Emunds, Josef M. Könning, Walter Lesch

2/2025: Taxes and debt. Fairer financing of rising public spending

In recent decades, public spending has increased significantly in the Federal Republic (and not only there). Although revenues have also increased during the same period, spending has outpaced revenues, with the exception of the years 2014 to 2019. The coronavirus pandemic from 2020 and the energy crisis in 2022 have led to record deficits in the financing of public budgets. To improve the security situation in the Federal Republic, to make the necessary investments on the road to climate neutrality and to bring public infrastructure up to the required standard, public spending will continue to rise in the future.

Because the state and the economy have been separated and the state does not generate any income from economic activities, public budgets receive the money necessary to finance their expenditures primarily from taxes and secondarily from fees, contributions and proceeds from the sale of assets. If revenues do not cover expenditures, they are financed by borrowing – and can and may, according to broad consensus, whenever corresponding expenditures flow into long-term investments.

The way in which the state finances its spending influences the economy and society. Alongside the law, taxes are probably the most effective means of steering individual economic activities in the public interest. In addition, taxes and public borrowing have a redistributive effect. Through taxes, redistribution tends to occur 'from top to bottom' between different incomes and wealth, or more precisely: taxes can be used to balance out the primary distribution of income and wealth (as calculated in the national accounts) in the real economy. By contrast, the 'redistribution' of public debt necessarily occurs 'from bottom to top', namely in favor of the wealthy, whose loans are serviced with taxpayers' money.

In order to limit Germany's national debt and the borrowing of public budgets, the German Bundestag and Bundesrat incorporated a debt brake into the Basic Law in 2009: “The budgets of the Federation and the Länder shall, in principle, be balanced without revenues from borrowing.” (Art. 109 GG). It is true that a deviation from this is permitted in the event of an economic development that deviates from the 'normal situation' and 'in the event of natural disasters or extraordinary emergency situations'. However, even then, 'the income from loans must not exceed 0.35 percent in relation to the nominal gross domestic product' (Art. 109 GG). Although the federal states are also subject to this constitutional debt brake, some of them have incorporated it into their state constitutions. The national debt brake tightens the fiscal rules that have been in force in the European Union since the Stability and Growth Pact (1992) and the Fiscal Compact (2012). While these rules were mainly applied against other member states in the past, they have recently also been used against Germany. Nevertheless, with a public debt-to-GDP ratio of below 70%, Germany is one of the least indebted industrialized countries.

For decades, the German state has been unable to fulfill the constitutional mandate of Article 109 to finance public spending without borrowing. It has been and remains unable to do so because it has been unable to impose sufficiently high taxes on its citizens and businesses, and thus to make them contribute in line with their ability to pay. This inability is particularly evident among high-income citizens with large assets – and increases with the level of taxable income and assets. The state has also been unable to finance its increasing spending in the recent past by raising taxes or improving tax revenues. Politically, 'higher taxes' for the super-rich are being brought into play; however, this has not been implemented (at least so far). In 1997, the wealth tax was suspended, so that since then no one in Germany has paid a wealth tax. The discussion is therefore focusing more on increasing borrowing and, to this end, on lifting the debt brake. However, there was not a sufficiently large political majority for this either in the legislative period that is now coming to an end. This is likely to be the main reason for the failure of the traffic light coalition – following the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court on the second supplementary budget law for 2021. The unresolved problem and the dispute over the debt brake will also persist in the next legislative period. Thus, 'taxes' and 'public debt' remain as ideologically highly charged topics of dispute for the Federal Republic of Germany.

In the special issue of EthikundGesellschaft, these controversial topics are to be addressed under the proviso of justice. In view of the necessary increase in public spending, the question arises as to how public finances can be regulated in a way that is both sufficient and fair. In the face of the promise that 'less state' would get Germany further, the question is asked whether increasing public spending is necessary to cope with the challenges of the future and to ensure the future viability of a democratic society, and therefore needs to be politically enforced. The question also arises as to whether the politically easier solution, the increasing borrowing by the state, – in view of the resulting 'redistribution' from bottom to top – is also the better and, above all, fairer solution for tight public budgets. In view of the high investment requirement, the constitutional debt brake is being questioned. Should it be resolved or at least relaxed to restore the German state's ability to act with regard to major future tasks – and if so, how? Above all, however, the question is whether and how the state can better mobilize society's potential through taxation and how it can make greater and more effective use of high-income and wealthy citizens to finance public spending.

Editor: Matthias Möhring-Hesse.

1/2026: No game. Wargaming and serious gaming in the age of AI

Can war be learned through play? Is it ethically justifiable to train how to fight enemy units in a gaming scenario? Does the presentation of realistic training as a 'playful simulation' carry the risk of blurring the categorical distinction between simulated scenarios and real conflicts?

These questions are not merely theoretical, but reflect existing practice. Military and civilian organizations around the world are increasingly relying on game-based learning and serious gaming to train complex and critical skills without taking real risks. This development raises ethical questions that affect peace policy, military, technological and civil society aspects in equal measure and require interdisciplinary discussion.

The contributions in this special issue can focus on considerations of the moral quality of technology ethics as well as on the epistemological, phenomenological or ontological status of such simulations. Equally, military and peace ethics as well as civil society considerations on the possible blending of reality and simulation are expressly welcome. We welcome interdisciplinary, empirical studies as well as contributions from military practice, the games industry and games research.

Editors: Kathrin Bruder, Lukas Johrendt, Gerhard Schreiber