Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Consent, conversion, and moral formation: Stoic elements in Jonathan Edwards's ethics.Elizabeth Agnew Cochran - 2011 - Journal of Religious Ethics 39 (4):623-650.
    The contemporary revival of virtue ethics has focused primarily on retrieving central moral commitments of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and the Neoplatonist traditions. Christian virtue ethicists would do well to expand this retrieval further to include the writings of the Roman Stoics. This essay argues that the ethics of Jonathan Edwards exemplifies major Stoic themes and explores three noteworthy points of intersection between Stoic ethics and Edwards's thought: a conception of virtue as consent to a benevolent providence, the identification of virtue (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Shaftesbury’s place in the history of moral realism.T. H. Irwin - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (4):865-882.
    Whewell and ShaftesburyIn contemporary moral philosophy ‘moral realism’ refers to a position in the metaphysics of morality that is analogous to realism about ordinary objects, and to scientific realism about theoretical entities. It is a realist doctrine in contrast to non-cognitivism, constructivism, fictionalism, and nihilism about moral judgments and moral properties. But while these particular contrasts are characteristic of contemporary philosophy, realism itself is much older. Ross, Prichard, and Sidgwick, for instance, hold realist views in the metaphysics of morals, though (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Hutcheson's Divergence from Shaftesbury.Simon Grote - 2006 - Journal of Scottish Philosophy 4 (2):159-172.
    Contrary to the view that Francis Hutcheson attempted to expound, defend, and further develop the philosophical system described in Shaftesbury's Characteristics, some contemporaries of Hutcheson considered Hutcheson's differences from Shaftesbury to be at least as profound as the similarities. The clearest descriptions of those differences can be found in William Leechman's preface to Hutcheson's 1755 System of Moral Philosophy, and more elaborately in a review of Hutcheson's System, probably by Hugh Blair, published in the 1755 Edinburgh Review. Examining Shaftesbury's and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations