On Parenesis and Fundamental Moral Theology

Journal of Religious Ethics 11 (1):23 - 34 (1983)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Recently, Roman Catholic moral theologians, in particular Schüller and McCormick, have stressed the difference between, and the perils of confusing, normative ethics with hortatory moralizing, or "parenesis." This viewpoint has lately been directed to criticizing certain conceptions of the distinctiveness of Christian ethics, including Hauerwas's emphasis on the importance of character in the context of narrative for exhibiting the validity of Christian morality. It is here argued that the distinction between parenesis and ethical norms, although meaningful, has been too sharply drawn and too extensively applied. It is suggested that a more discreet use of the distinction would reveal greater scope for positions like Hauerwas's and take better advantage of modern developments in metaethics.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,932

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
9 (#1,269,071)

6 months
2 (#1,446,987)

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

No references found.

Add more references