LAUSR

create reciprocity among humans; God gives the gift of ‘the power of giving itself’ (p. 147). In a Christian virtue ethics of debt, everyone should reflect God’s gifting. Ahn proposes four virtues, developed in discussion with Aquinas and Aristotle: moderation, liberality, fortitude, and gratitude. In his final paragraph, Ahn summarizes his hope for a transformation of debt’s place in society: ‘If humanity would finally realize that debt can indeed become a form of gift, it may redeem itself from many of its follies and miseries’ (p. 159). Ahn impressively crafts an ethical discussion that is wide-ranging, engaging and readable, and draws on diverse voices and traditions. It should broadly interest social ethicists, economists and philosophers. His compelling proposal for ‘just debt’ balances realism and hope, and seems a feasible and timely intervention. Numerous examples and case studies winsomely illustrate his argument. A few questions are to be raised regarding Ahn’s theological engagement. First, when examining Islam and Judaism, Ahn starts with central texts and tenets of these religions, then proceeds to historical treatments of their concepts, before drawing implications for the modern economy. With Christianity, however, Ahn begins by assuming a virtue ethics approach without discussion, then engages Tanner, who adopts ‘her own creative way of “reworking”’ (p. 144) Christian scriptural narratives; the narratives themselves are only engaged with disappointing brevity at the end of the discussion, and only as fodder for virtues. Why this changed approach? The bigger questions concern Ahn’s larger project. While imbued with postcolonial, Marxist, and feminist self-criticism, the book’s modern and humanist discourse aims to put debt in service of ‘our global community of new brotherhood and sisterhood’ (p. 125). But by looking to religions only for principles which he could apply outside of their religious, cultural context (p. 134), is Ahn not performing the same decontextualization of these religious elements which he decries regarding debt? Rather than reintegrating debt into its original contexts, does this decontextualization integrate these contexts along with debt into an overarching framework of modernity, itself already constructed on a model of technical objectivity? Indeed, rather than making debt an exclusively interpersonal matter (and despite decrying Locke’s approach to debt), Ahn still accepts tradable debt in principle (p. 53, n. 54). While certainly supporting the ethical direction in which Ahn wants to shift the current discussion, it seems to me that Ahn’s position is overly optimistic that humanity can ‘redeem itself’ (p. 159) and retain the modern ‘economy of debt’ framework without succumbing to the ‘infinite desire’ for ‘artificial wealth’ (p. 151). These critiques notwithstanding, Ahn’s volume is most urgent for those who hold power to implement changes at the social level. We should be thankful already if political discussions of global and individual debt could approach the level of commitment to human flourishing reflected in this volume.