Is Dualism Religiously and Morally Pernicious?

American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 78 (1):99-106 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In a recent address to the American Catholic Philosophical Association, Alfred Freddoso has claimed that dualism is both religiously and morally pernicious. He contends that dualism runs afoul of the Catholic teaching that the soul is the form of the body, and that dualism leaves the body with nothing more than instrumental moral worth. On the contrary, I argue that dualism per se is neither religiously nor morally pernicious. Dualism is compatible with a rich teleology of embodiment that will underwrite all of the same moral insights about the body that traditional hylomorphism supports.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

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

A Defense of Dualism.Keith E. Yandell - 1995 - Faith and Philosophy 12 (4):548-566.
Giving Dualism its Due.William G. Lycan - 2009 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (4):551-563.
Should property-dualists be substance-hylomorphists?Gordon Barnes - 2001 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 75:285-299.
Good News, Your Soul Hasn’t Died Quite Yet.Alfred J. Freddoso - 2001 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 75:79-96.
Dualism, Physicalism, and the Passion of the Christ.Joungbin Lim - 2010 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 45:185-197.
Five Bodies—and a Sixth.Robert E. Wood - 2009 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83 (1):95-105.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-01-09

Downloads
43 (#323,137)

6 months
2 (#658,980)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Gordon Barnes
State University of New York (SUNY)

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references