On Parenesis and Fundamental Moral Theology
Recently, Roman Catholic moral theologians, in particular Schüller and McCormick, have stressed the difference between, and the perils of confusing, normative ethics with hortatory moralizing, or "parenesis." This viewpoint has lately been directed to criticizing certain conceptions of the...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
1983
|
| In: |
Journal of religious ethics
Year: 1983, Volume: 11, Issue: 1, Pages: 23-34 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | Recently, Roman Catholic moral theologians, in particular Schüller and McCormick, have stressed the difference between, and the perils of confusing, normative ethics with hortatory moralizing, or "parenesis." This viewpoint has lately been directed to criticizing certain conceptions of the distinctiveness of Christian ethics, including Hauerwas's emphasis on the importance of character in the context of narrative for exhibiting the validity of Christian morality. It is here argued that the distinction between parenesis and ethical norms, although meaningful, has been too sharply drawn and too extensively applied. It is suggested that a more discreet use of the distinction would reveal greater scope for positions like Hauerwas's and take better advantage of modern developments in metaethics. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-9795 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of religious ethics
|