/pdf/morality-as-natural-history-an-adaptationist-account-of-4qvq1jsznd.pdf

Morality as Natural History An adaptationist account of ethics

In this paper, we contextualize Claudia Card's work on forgiveness within wider literatures on forgiveness. With Card, we emphasize the costs of forgiveness and the sufferings of victims, and suggest alternatives to forgiving evils. Women who live in particularly unsafe contexts require recognition more than reconciliation. We conclude that those who forgive evil also require recognition that respects the choices of forgiving agents, seeing their decisions as relevant to conceptual analysis about forgiveness.

The Limits of Forgiveness

University of Manchester Jim Coleman Doctor of Philosophy The Antithetical Homiletic of John Wesley?s Sermons on Several Occasions I-IV 2016 ABSTRACT This thesis recognizes John Wesley (1703-1791) as a conventional Anglican preacher rooted in the humanist rhetorical tradition. As such, Wesley was a homiletical theologian who presents doctrine sermonically. The thesis presents an interface between current Wesley Studies scholarship, which addresses the theological component of Wesley?s so-called ?Standard Sermons,? and current studies of the early modern British sermon. By doing so, it provides a more thorough description of the rhetorical dimension and dynamic of Wesley?s Sermons on Several Occasions I-IV (SOSO). The introductory chapter offers a literature review which first locates John Wesley the homilist within the context of the early modern British sermon, then within the nineteenth and twentieth century biographical and theological perspectives of Wesley?s preaching. It then reviews notable SOSO I-IV editions, the variety of perspectives regarding the purpose and audience of SOSO I-IV, establishes that Wesley?s use of rhetorical antithesis is similar in kind to his pulpit contemporaries, and offers a methodology for exploring Wesley?s antithetical preferences. Chapter Two presents a reappraisal of Wesley?s 1746 Preface to SOSO I-IV. The Preface indicates Wesley?s focus on the homiletic aspects of the series, and this chapter suggests categories for these features. Wesley also clearly states that the overarching theological purpose for SOSO I-IV was to ?distinguish? Scriptural Christianity from the doctrinal imbalances of formalism (primarily moralism) and antinomianism. From the Preface declaration of the antithetical aim of I-IV, develops the thesis statement proper: This thesis conducts an analysis of the neoclassical form and homiletic features in John Wesley?s Sermons on Several Occasions IIV, to delineate an antithetical rhetorical pattern intended to correct persistent formalistic and antinomian doctrinal imbalances. Chapters Three, Four, and Five provide rhetorical (dispositio) analyses of the fifty-three SOSO I-IV sermons to discover internal support for the thesis statement. Chapter Three examines and categorizes the neoclassical introductions (exordium and partitio movements). In these, Wesley?s rhetorical use of via salutis doctrine versus non-via salutis doctrine gains attention and interest. Chapter Four discusses his thematic use of ?Scriptural? versus unscriptural Christianity in the sermon?s argumentative (probatio and refutatio) sections. Chapter Five charts Wesley?s use of holy versus unholy affections in the sermonic conclusions (peroratio). For Wesley, these antithetical themes counter the errors of moralism and antinomianism. Chapter Six reflects on the findings of the preceding chapters and confirms the consistency of rhetorical antithesis in SOSO I-IV. It argues for an antithetical ?homiletic reading? of the Sermons which, more accurately than the prevalent ?standardization reading,? measures their form, function, and theological message. This interpretive pursuit more fully connects the contemporary reader of Wesley?s sermons with the purpose, homiletic skill, rhetorical force, and spiritual vitality with which they were originally preached, heard, and read.

The antithetical homiletic of John Wesley's Sermons on Several Occasions, I-IV

Swinburne offers a greater-goods defence to the problem of evil within a deontological framework. Yet deontologists characteristically hold that we have no right to inflict great evil on any individual to bring about the greater good. Swinburne accepts that humans generally do not have that right, but argues that God, as the supreme care-giver, does. I contend that Swinburne's argument that care-givers have such a right is flawed, and defend the classical deontological objection to imposing evils that good may come.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/20008420

Is God (almost) a consequentialist? Swinburne's moral theory

/pdf/moral-motivation-and-the-authority-of-morality-a-defense-of-4srmdpnhrp.pdf

Bishop Halifax

Papers

Fifteen sermons, preached at Rolls Chapel : to which is added, A charge to the clergymen of Durham