"The Journal of Religious Ethics " subscribes to a triple mission of publishing work in theoretical, historical, and comparative areas of religious ethics. Social ethics has not been an explicit feature of this publication profile and so was not a subject of comment in Ronald Green's RSR review of the journal. Whether the JRE can and should do more in the area of social ethics is the subject of consideration in this evaluative essay. After reviewing the JRE's performance in the (...) domain of social ethics, noting both what is and is not to be found in these pages, the author reflects that the JRE is well placed to provide unity for a fragmented field, comparative treatments of divisive issues in a pluralistic culture, and leadership in social ethics considered as public discourse. (shrink)

This essay aims to elucidate how multiple voices and traditions should interact with one another in the practice of ethics. First, it explores some of the major ways in which questions of bodily autonomy function in secular feminist and Jewish bioethical discourses. It then uses case studies to illuminate ways each discourse's concepts of bodily autonomy can be deeply problematic, and argues that the strengths in each discourse can serve as important correctives for the weaknesses in the other. It suggests (...) that some formal features of rabbinic texts can serve as a model for a discourse of constant and animated mutual correction. Finally, it examines two case studies in light of this model. (shrink)

In this primarily methodological essay, several issues are explored. Among them are questions of starting point; the inclusiveness of the claims made in feminist ethics; the place of virtue, principles, and rules; and the relation of feminist ethics to Christian ethics. But methodological issues raise substantive ones. I suggest, therefore, that the concepts of friendship and nurture are normative starting points for the resolution of questions of both method and content.

Religious thinking, including among Muslims, connects food and sex, as well as women and animals; both food practices and gender norms are significant for communal identity and boundary construction. Female bodies and animal bodies serve as potent signifiers of Muslim identity, as patriarchal thought sustains the hierarchical cosmologies that affirm male dominance in family and society and allow humans to view animals as legitimately subject to human violence. I argue that Muslims in the industrialized West—especially those concerned with gender justice—ought (...) to be vegetarians and that feminist ethics provides underutilized resources for Muslim thinking about ethics generally and food ethics in particular. Much contemporary Muslim thought about meat is at least as concerned with demonstrating the primacy of “Islamic” identity as with general questions about the formation of virtuous subjects and the development of good societies. This defensive concern with religious authenticity poses a stumbling block to richer thinking. Engagement with non-Islamic ethics provides a model for productive dialogue and engagement among parties who disagree about basic presumptions but agree on desirable outcomes, including the development of individuals' ethical sensibilities and the construction of societies conducive to human flourishing. (shrink)

This focus issue is a conversation at and about the interface of feminist ethics and religious ethics, in order to show what these multifaceted fields of intellectual endeavor and practical import have to say to each other, to teach and to learn. The seven essays approach that dialogue from a variety of angles and traditions, reflecting the fecundity of both fields and the wide-ranging concerns of colleagues in religious ethics who share commitments and methods with feminist ethics.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a remarkable change took place in advanced theological education in the United States: the study of Christian ethics (and other theological studies as well) moved quite rapidly from seminaries into graduate programs at religiously unaffiliated universities. The birth of the "Journal of Religious Ethics" should be understood in the context of this wider shift. The consequences of this migration have been, on the whole, regrettable. In universities, styles of analysis and metaethical issues have (...) been elevated into subject matter, impoverishing Christian moral reflection, but the principal loss has been the loss of the church itself - that set of practices necessary to make ethical reflection intelligible for Christians. (shrink)

The discipline of religious ethics consists in critical reflection on religious varieties of ethical discourse, but to study a variety of ethical discourse, we must look at particular examples of it. Which examples should we be look- ing at? What varieties or traditions shall we take them to represent? In answering these questions, scholars reveal much about their normative commitments. When "religious ethics" replaced "theological ethics" as a cur- ricular rubric in some schools, many ethicists attempted to present their work (...) as value neutral, but it is better to admit that commitments matter and are unavoidable. The new traditionalists make no secret of their nor- mative commitments, which imply an indictment of modern ethical dis- course as a whole. Their candor is commendable, but their indictment can be challenged. Debunkers of modernity have trouble accounting for their own position. Their samples of modern ethical discourse are not repre- sentative. Many democratic voices evidently remain unacknowledged and unexplained. (shrink)