Journal of Religious Ethics 23 (1):3 - 25 (1995)
AbstractThis essay sets forth a philosophical reformulation and defense of the doctrine of original sin. The sticking point of the traditional doctrine is its apparent commitment to the proposition that moral guilt is heritable. While I make no claim to defend the justice of vicarious punishment (the idea of having one person suffer for the sins of another), I credit nevertheless the idea of vicarious guilt. As responsible beings, we have to answer for evil that we cannot conceivably have willed ourselves. The reformulation of original sin and guilt takes its inspiration from Kant's conception of radical evil, which is refined in light of some contemporary reflection on the nature of responsible freedom.
Similar books and articles
The First and the Second Adam: Reflections on James Wetzel's Reformulation of a Doctrine.Gilbert Meilaender - 1995 - Journal of Religious Ethics 23 (1):27 - 33.
The metaphysics of original sin.Michael C. Rea - 2007 - In Peter Van Inwagen & Dean Zimmerman (eds.), Persons: Human and Divine. Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press ;. pp. 319--356.
Original Sin and a Broad Free Will Defense.W. Paul Franks - 2012 - Philosophia Christi 14 (2):353–371.
The Anxiety of Inheritance: Reinhold Niebuhr and the Literal Truth of Original Sin.Geoffrey Rees - 2003 - Journal of Religious Ethics 31 (1):75 - 99.
The Problem of Propagation: Original Sin as Inherited Discourse.James Stillwaggon - 2013 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 33 (1):61-73.
Can evolutionary psychology confirm original sin?John T. Mullen - 2007 - Faith and Philosophy 24 (3):268-283.
Original Sin, Radical Evil and Moral Identity.Philip L. Quinn - 1984 - Faith and Philosophy 1 (2):188-202.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Reinterpreting Original Sin: Integrating Insights From Sociology and the Evolutionary Sciences.Nicholas Olkovich - 2013 - Heythrop Journal 54 (2):715-731.
References found in this work
No references found.