Debate, Prophecy, and Revolution: Notes on Cathleen Kaveny's Prophecy Without Contempt
In Prophecy without Contempt, Cathleen Kaveny argues that prevailing scholarly approaches to religious and public discourse misunderstand the actual complexity of moral rhetoric in America. She endeavors to provide a better account through study of the role the Puritan jeremiad has played. Kaveny th...
| Published in: | Journal of religious ethics |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Review |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2018]
|
| In: |
Journal of religious ethics
|
| Review of: | Prophecy without contempt (Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 2016) (Hart, William David)
Prophecy without contempt (Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 2016) (Hart, William David) |
| Further subjects: | B
John Rawls
B jeremiad B Moral Deliberation B Book review B Stephen Carter B Alasdair MacIntyre B Puritan B revolutionary moral discourse B prophetic denunciation B Cathleen Kaveny |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | In Prophecy without Contempt, Cathleen Kaveny argues that prevailing scholarly approaches to religious and public discourse misunderstand the actual complexity of moral rhetoric in America. She endeavors to provide a better account through study of the role the Puritan jeremiad has played. Kaveny then offers a normative case for deliberative public moral discourse and the limited exercise of prophetic denunciation. I argue that Kaveny's distinction between deliberation and prophetic denunciation is overdrawn. They are ideal types that elide other rhetorical forms. Moreover, both deliberative discourse and prophetic denunciation assume a social contract or shared tradition. Healthy moral discourse requires revolutionary rhetoric to interrogate and break traditions that are themselves morally compromised. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-9795 |
| Reference: | Kritik in "Response to Critics (2018)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of religious ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/jore.12212 |