La paradoja del juicio de responsabilidad moral en Temor y Temblor

Revista de Filosofía (Madrid) 28 (1):172-195 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The main purpose of this article consists in discussing the idea of moral responsibility in Abraham’s case as it is put forward in Fear and Trembling. With this idea in mind, the notion of ethical heteronomy that the author defends is opposed to kantian ethical autonomy. From this viewpoint, religious sacrifice not only cannot but also must not be ethically justified. The discussion is developed considering Kierkegaard’s ideas from the perspective of different contemporary ethical theories

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,628

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-03

Downloads
11 (#1,132,055)

6 months
3 (#961,692)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Moral Luck.B. A. O. Williams & T. Nagel - 1976 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 50:115 - 151.
Moral Luck.Thomas Nagel - 1993 - In Daniel Statman (ed.), Moral Luck. State University of New York Press. pp. 141--166.
Concluding Unscientific Postscript.Søren Kierkegaard - 2019 - Princeton University Press.
Frygt og Bæven.Søen Kierkegaard & Niels Thulstrup - 1968 - København,: Gyldendal.

Add more references