Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Holism and comparative religious ethics1

Holism and comparative religious ethics1 <jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This article is devoted to an examination of Jeffrey Stout's holistic approach to comparative religious ethics. Although the strategy I pursue involves a close examination of Stout's criticism of a particular work in comparative religious ethics, defending that work is incidental to my purpose. I argue, first, that Stout is seriously mistaken about the implications of holism for comparative study and, second, that his own approach to doing comparative religious ethics is unacceptable for a variety of theoretical and practical reasons. On a more positive side, I briefly explain what I take the purpose of comparative ethics to be. I also set out to show that how one understands the task of comparative religious ethics, and the way one undertakes comparative work in general, cannot be divorced from the type of concern with method and theory (e.g., a theory of religion) that Stout surprisingly sees as detrimental to comparative study.</jats:p> </jats:sec> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Brill

Holism and comparative religious ethics1

Method & Theory in the Study of Religion , Volume 7 (2): 131 – Jan 1, 1995

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/holism-and-comparative-religious-ethics1-idveyEqfR2

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1995 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0943-3058
eISSN
1570-0682
DOI
10.1163/157006895X00351
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This article is devoted to an examination of Jeffrey Stout's holistic approach to comparative religious ethics. Although the strategy I pursue involves a close examination of Stout's criticism of a particular work in comparative religious ethics, defending that work is incidental to my purpose. I argue, first, that Stout is seriously mistaken about the implications of holism for comparative study and, second, that his own approach to doing comparative religious ethics is unacceptable for a variety of theoretical and practical reasons. On a more positive side, I briefly explain what I take the purpose of comparative ethics to be. I also set out to show that how one understands the task of comparative religious ethics, and the way one undertakes comparative work in general, cannot be divorced from the type of concern with method and theory (e.g., a theory of religion) that Stout surprisingly sees as detrimental to comparative study.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Journal

Method & Theory in the Study of ReligionBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1995

There are no references for this article.