You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Anthropos and Ethics: Categories of Inquiry and Procedures of Comparison
Thomas A. Lewis, Jonathan Wyn Schofer, Aaron Stalnaker and Mark A. Berkson
The Journal of Religious Ethics
Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun., 2005), pp. 177-185
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40015304
Page Count: 9
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Religious ethics, Christian ethics, Descriptive ethics, Normative ethics, Virtue ethics, Rabbinic ethics, Jewish ethics, Discourse ethics, Bridges, Cross cultural studies
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Building on influential work in virtue ethics, this collection of essays examines the categories of self, person, and anthropology as foci for comparative analysis. The papers unite reflections on theory and method with descriptive work that addresses thinkers from the modern West, Christian and Jewish Late Antiquity, early China, and other settings. The introduction sets out central methodological issues that are subsequently taken up in each essay, including the origin of the categories through which comparison proceeds, the status of these categories in the process of comparison, and the goals of comparison. In considering the question of goals, the introduction draws connections between comparative study and historical study within one tradition. Both types of analysis can bridge the gap between historical and normative work by attending to the ways in which the questions a scholar asks - not just the answers found - vary from one context to another.
The Journal of Religious Ethics © 2005 Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc