Abstract

In the last decades of the twentieth century, pragmatism rose in prominence among U.S. scholars at the same time that the study of Christian Ethics has reached a critical juncture in its history. Facing the demand that they show how their work can function in socially relevant ways, many Christian ethicists have turned to pragmatism as a way to develop and explain their work. Yet they are not the first to claim the promises of pragmatism. An earlier generation of Christian ethicists adopted and adapted the work of C. S. Peirce, William James, and John Dewey for their own purposes. This dissertation explores that process of adoption and adaptation through an analysis of three prominent but very different mid-century Christian ethicists, each of whom called themselves "Christian Pragmatists": Joseph Fletcher, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Robert Johann. ;This dissertation is primarily analytic in approach and genealogical in temperament. Its three central questions are as follows: What does each of these scholars think pragmatism is and which of its aspects do they emphasize? What theological, philosophical, or political limits does each place on pragmatism? What benefits and burdens does each ethicist's adoption of pragmatism place on his larger system? Given their distinctive backgrounds , their varied interests, and their distinct approaches, the answers to these three questions will share both commonalities and differences. Their commonalities affirm the power of pragmatism in Christian ethics. Their differences reveal the possibilities of pragmatism for a new generation of scholars