Religious Studies 41 (3):249-268 (2005)
|Abstract||Because Anselm of Canterbury argues that the morally responsible created agent must have the option to choose between justice and benefit, many scholars conclude that he is a proto-Kantian, pitting duty against self-interest and natural inclination. This is mistaken. Anselm proposes a hierarchical schema, prefiguring that of Harry Frankfurt, in which the inclination for justice constitutes a second-order desire that one's first-order desires for benefits should be moderated to conform to God's will. I defend this interpretation through careful textual analysis, then show that Anselm's hierarchical analysis is not subject to some of the criticisms one might raise against Frankfurt's.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ben Novak (2008). Anselm on Nothing. International Philosophical Quarterly 48 (3):305-320.
Katherin A. Rogers (2007). Libertarianism in Kane and Anselm. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 81:279-290.
Katherin A. Rogers (2007). God is Not the Author of Sin. Faith and Philosophy 24 (3):300-310.
Gregory B. Sadler (2007). Freedom, Inclinations of the Will, and Virtue in Anselm's Moral Th Eory. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 81:91-108.
Katherin A. Rogers (2007). God is Not the Author of Sin: An Anselmian Response to McCann. Faith and Philosophy 24 (3):300-310.
Mark Owen Webb (2005). In Defense of Anselm. Philo 8 (1):55-58.
Katherin Rogers (2009). Back to Eternalism. Faith and Philosophy 26 (3):320-338.
Katherin A. Rogers (2008). Anselm on Freedom. Oxford University Press.
Stan R. Tyvoll (2006). Anselm's Definition of Free Will. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80 (2):155-171.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #154,629 of 722,773 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,773 )
How can I increase my downloads?