Abstract

This essay responds to some of the criticisms leveled against Little and Twiss, Comparative Religious Ethics. The general approach and some of the detailed conclusions are defended against those who charge, on the one hand, that the book lacks sufficient theoretical sweep, and, on the other, that its central concepts and categories impede sensitive understanding of particular religious traditions. An effort is made to clarify and support a basic assumption of the book (and, the authors believe, of all comparative work): the importance of the investigator's cultural location in shaping the comparative enterprise.