|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some Problems with Particularism |
|
|
|
| Author |
Keown, Damien
|
|---|
| Source |
Journal of Buddhist Ethics
|
|---|
| Volume | v.20 |
|---|
| Date | 2013 |
|---|
| Pages | 445 - 460 |
|---|
| Publisher | Department of History & Religious Studies Program , The Pennsylvania State University |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
https://history.la.psu.edu/
|
|---|
| Location | University Park, PA, US |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 英文=English |
|---|
| Note | Damien Keown, Goldsmiths College, University of London. |
|---|
| Abstract | This article suggests that due to a restricted understanding of the nature and scope of ethical theory, particularism discounts prematurely the possibility of a metatheory of Buddhist ethics. The textual evidence presented in support of particularism is reconsidered and shown to be consistent with a metatheoretical reading. It is argued that writers who have adopted a particularist approach
based on W. D. Ross’s “Principalism”—such as Tessa Bartholomeusz in her study of just war ideology in Sri Lanka—have failed to give a satisfactory analysis of the moral dilemmas they have identified. Although particularism rightly draws attention to stories as important sources of moral data, it fails to disprove that the diversity of such evidence can be explained by a single comprehensive theory. |
|---|
| ISSN | 10769005 (E) |
|---|
| Hits | 390 |
|---|
| Created date | 2014.07.14 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.07.13 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
