What Makes an Ethical Account a Natural Law Ethical Account? Contemporary Ethics, Metaethics, and Normative Ethics

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION Studies in Christian Ethics Pub Date : 2024-03-11 DOI:10.1177/09539468241233182
John D. O’Connor
{"title":"What Makes an Ethical Account a Natural Law Ethical Account? Contemporary Ethics, Metaethics, and Normative Ethics","authors":"John D. O’Connor","doi":"10.1177/09539468241233182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What makes ethical accounts natural law ethical is, I argue, commonly misrepresented in teaching within much of the philosophical academy. Yet those immersed in the field of natural law and ethics rarely give definitions/brief characterisations of what makes ethical accounts natural law ethical. I suggest theoretical reasons for the lack. I argue that bringing natural law into ethics is best understood as leading to theoretically unitary accounts, not simply collections of positions detachable from each other: an overlooked and significant point when defending natural law ethical accounts. My arguments throughout rely on the metaethical/normative ethical distinction, which is relatively little used in the natural law literature. I argue that the distinction helps clarify what is distinctive of natural law ethical accounts in general, especially to the secular contemporary philosophical academy, where appreciation of natural law ethical accounts is commonly appreciably lower than in philosophical contexts with a religious ethos.","PeriodicalId":43593,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Christian Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Christian Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09539468241233182","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What makes ethical accounts natural law ethical is, I argue, commonly misrepresented in teaching within much of the philosophical academy. Yet those immersed in the field of natural law and ethics rarely give definitions/brief characterisations of what makes ethical accounts natural law ethical. I suggest theoretical reasons for the lack. I argue that bringing natural law into ethics is best understood as leading to theoretically unitary accounts, not simply collections of positions detachable from each other: an overlooked and significant point when defending natural law ethical accounts. My arguments throughout rely on the metaethical/normative ethical distinction, which is relatively little used in the natural law literature. I argue that the distinction helps clarify what is distinctive of natural law ethical accounts in general, especially to the secular contemporary philosophical academy, where appreciation of natural law ethical accounts is commonly appreciably lower than in philosophical contexts with a religious ethos.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
是什么让伦理解释成为自然法伦理解释?当代伦理学、元伦理学和规范伦理学
我认为,自然法伦理账户之所以是伦理账户,在哲学学术界的大部分教学中普遍存在误解。然而,那些浸淫于自然法和伦理学领域的人却很少对自然法伦理账户的伦理性做出定义/简要描述。我提出了缺乏定义的理论原因。我认为,将自然法引入伦理学的最佳理解是导致理论上统一的论述,而不仅仅是可相互分离的立场的集合:这是为自然法伦理学论述辩护时被忽视的重要一点。我的论点自始至终都依赖于元伦理学/规范伦理学的区别,这种区别在自然法文献中使用得相对较少。我认为,这种区分有助于澄清自然法伦理论述的独特之处,尤其是对世俗的当代哲学学术界而言,因为在这些学术界,对自然法伦理论述的欣赏程度通常明显低于具有宗教精神的哲学语境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
89
期刊最新文献
Being with Others and the Practice of Theodicy Book Review: Discipleship and Unity: Bonhoeffer’s Ecumenical Theology by Cole Jodon Book Review: Test All Things: The Bible, Faith, and Science by Gijsbert van den Brink Book Review: The Logic of Love: Christian Ethics and Moral Psychology by Andrew Cameron Book Review: Lying and Truthfulness: A Thomistic Perspective by Stewart Clem
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1