Response to Edmund N. Santurri

Journal of Religious Ethics 41 (3):551-554 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Barth and Niebuhr seemed to be wary of natural law because each of them thought that the “natural” in natural law means that natural law has to be rooted in natural theology. However, natural law today is more cogently formulated without any natural theology at all. “Natural law” means that law can be derived from the twofold character or nature of human personhood: the capacity for a communal relationship with other humans, and the capacity for a covenantal relationship with God, both of which continually overlap in human life. The natural or external world only provides the backdrop for these human capacities; it does not determine them

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,709

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

The Neo‐Barthian Critique of Reinhold Niebuhr.Edmund N. Santurri - 2013 - Journal of Religious Ethics 41 (3):541-547.
Rediscovering the natural law in Reformed theological ethics.Stephen John Grabill - 2006 - Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co..
Toward a Unified Foundation of Natural Law Ethics.Edmund Wall - 2010 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 84 (4):747-779.
The natural moral law: the good after modernity.Owen J. Anderson - 2012 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Natural Law Beyond Finnis.Jonathan Crowe - 2011 - Jurisprudence 2 (2):293-308.
Morality matters.Roger Trigg (ed.) - 2005 - Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-07-19

Downloads
39 (#406,659)

6 months
3 (#962,988)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David Novak
University of Toronto, St. George Campus

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references