Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
<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>
Method & Theory in the Study of Religion – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 1995
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.