Abstract
In my response to Theo de Wit’s paper, I first set out what I consider to be his most important claims about the relationship between evil and narrativity, before asking four questions about some of the implications of these claims: (1) Are we to presume that there is an absolute choice between reconciliation and a full recounting of evil, so that the latter would necessarily preclude the former? (2) Assuming that we are indeed faced with such a choice, what is proper response to it? (3) Is there any hope of a trustworthy account of evil at all, given that deception seems to be endemic in every such account? and (4) What status should we accord to victimhood in general and victims’ narratives in particular?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
