東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Sin, guilt, justice and war: Paul Ra...

Carnahan, Kevin.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Sin, guilt, justice and war: Paul Ramsey and Reinhold Niebuhr on the moral framework for just war thought.

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Sin, guilt, justice and war: Paul Ramsey and Reinhold Niebuhr on the moral framework for just war thought./
Author:	Carnahan, Kevin.
Description:	403 p.
Notes:	Adviser: Robin W. Lovin.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International68-03A.
Subject:	Philosophy. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3258700

Sin, guilt, justice and war: Paul Ramsey and Reinhold Niebuhr on the moral framework for just war thought.
Carnahan, Kevin.

Sin, guilt, justice and war: Paul Ramsey and Reinhold Niebuhr on the moral framework for just war thought. - 403 p.

Adviser: Robin W. Lovin.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Southern Methodist University, 2007.

There is, in contemporary moral theology, a thin ecumenical consensus among nonpacifists around the use of just war criteria. This consensus at times obscures the plurality of frameworks of thought that provide the context for particular understandings and applications of these criteria. This dissertation explores the philosophical sources, theological frameworks, and moral conceptions of war that guided two central figures in the twentieth-century Protestant recovery of just war thought.Subjects--Topical Terms:

516511
Philosophy.

Sin, guilt, justice and war: Paul Ramsey and Reinhold Niebuhr on the moral framework for just war thought.
LDR:03993nam 2200313 a 45 001 962584
005 20110830
008 110831s2007 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
035 $a (UMI)AAI3258700
035 $a AAI3258700
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Carnahan, Kevin. $3 1285644
245 1 0 $a Sin, guilt, justice and war: Paul Ramsey and Reinhold Niebuhr on the moral framework for just war thought.
300 $a 403 p.
500 $a Adviser: Robin W. Lovin.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 68-03, Section: A, page: 1021.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Southern Methodist University, 2007.
520 $a There is, in contemporary moral theology, a thin ecumenical consensus among nonpacifists around the use of just war criteria. This consensus at times obscures the plurality of frameworks of thought that provide the context for particular understandings and applications of these criteria. This dissertation explores the philosophical sources, theological frameworks, and moral conceptions of war that guided two central figures in the twentieth-century Protestant recovery of just war thought.
520 $a Reinhold Niebuhr's early encounter with pragmatism sensitized him to the dangers of moral fanaticism. His later theological development was influenced by this encounter. His doctrines of Christology, love, sin, and providence are constructed to combat the dangers of idolatrous moral fanaticism. Paul Ramsey's early encounter with absolute idealism sensitized him to the danger of atomistic moral relativism. His development of the doctrine of love as covenant, his understanding of sin as treachery, and his doctrine of providence reflect the influence of this early encounter. Ramsey's and Niebuhr's divergent moral and theological conceptions of war also reveal their ongoing attention to these moral dangers. Reacting against fanatical militarism and absolute pacifism, Niebuhr conceives of war as a manifestation of God's judgment of against all as sinners in history. Thus, Niebuhr stresses that while war may at times be the best option available, there is no valid claim to perfect righteousness in a time of war. Reacting against moral relativism, Ramsey conceives of war as a delimited act of covenant love within the bounds of history. He stresses the need for war to be understood in terms of both a moral permission and a structured set of moral limitations.
520 $a A dialogue between Ramsey's and Niebuhr's positions reveals a set of strengths and weaknesses toward which their positions tend. Ramsey's analysis tends to overstate the security of deontic judgments, to understate the value of prudential judgments, and to be insufficiently critical of social institutions and authorities. At the same time, Ramsey's focus on moral structure brings him to value casuistic categories and frameworks that Niebuhr never sufficiently appreciated. Niebuhr's analysis provides a rich theological context for the virtues of humility, responsibility, and criticalness, which are necessary to avoid fanaticism in an imperfect world. But Niebuhr often overstates the corruption of social units, is insufficiently attentive to the need for casuistic categories in moral analysis, and is overly pessimistic about the power of moral reasons in history.
520 $a The last section of the dissertation examines the extent to which Ramsey's and Niebuhr's analysis during the Vietnam War reflected the strengths and weaknesses of their moral frameworks. The two moral conceptions of war developed by these theologians, I argue, shaped their analyses in ways that ought to inform later theologians and ethicists that work within the terms Niebuhr and Ramsey provided.
590 $a School code: 0210.
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 516511
650 4 $a Religion, General. $3 1017453
650 4 $a Religion, Philosophy of. $3 1017774
690 $a 0318
690 $a 0322
690 $a 0422
710 2 $a Southern Methodist University. $3 1024930
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 68-03A.
790 $a 0210
790 1 0 $a Lovin, Robin W., $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2007
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3258700