Moral Reason, Risk, and Comparative Inquiry: A Response to Francisca Cho

Journal of Religious Ethics 26 (1):167-174 (1998)
In her critique of ethical naturalism and ethical formalism as starting points for methods in comparative religious ethics, Francisca Cho correctly identifies formalism and naturalism as modern Western versions of moral rationality, and she shows us important commonalities that the debate between formalism and naturalism may obscure. Her proposal to treat the other as a "philosophical subject" does not, however, escape the limitations of naturalism and formalism. The antifoundationalist rejection of theory and generalization in favor of the particulars of moral experience is yet another version of modern Western moral rationality, and it, too, is one of the models of moral rationality with which we begin our comparative work
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 31,786
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index

Total downloads
4 ( #721,589 of 2,231,532 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #445,507 of 2,231,532 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature