Why the Debate on Proportionalism is Misconceived
Proportionalists and anti-proportionalists assume that, insofar as moral description is a problem, the solution is a theory of moral description. McCormick and Finnis (as well as John Paul II) are test-cases for showing this. However, both sides neglect the primacy of moral practice. Disputes about...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
1997
|
| In: |
Modern theology
Year: 1997, Volume: 13, Issue: 4, Pages: 501-524 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | Proportionalists and anti-proportionalists assume that, insofar as moral description is a problem, the solution is a theory of moral description. McCormick and Finnis (as well as John Paul II) are test-cases for showing this. However, both sides neglect the primacy of moral practice. Disputes about moral description can be recast as disputes about practices and virtues, leaving aside the whole conceptual apparatus of the proportionalism debate. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1468-0025 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Modern theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/1468-0025.00050 |
