Visions of the Common Good: Engelhardt’s Engagement with Catholic Social Teaching

J. Eberl
{"title":"Visions of the Common Good: Engelhardt’s Engagement with Catholic Social Teaching","authors":"J. Eberl","doi":"10.1093/CB/CBAA019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this paper, I confront Engelhardt’s views—conceptualized as a cohesive moral perspective grounded in a combination of secular and Christian moral requirements—on two fronts. First, I critique his view of the moral demands of justice within a secular pluralistic society by showing how Thomistic natural law theory provides a content-full theory of human flourishing that is rationally articulable and defensible as a canonical vision of the good, even if it is not universally recognized as such. Second, I defend the principles of Roman Catholic social teaching (RCST) against Engelhardt’s objection that it constitutes a watered-down version of the Christian moral vision which opens the door to intolerable moral compromises. While I acknowledge that Engelhardt’s criticism of RCST is well-grounded in certain abusive compromises that have been made by some Catholic healthcare institutions, I contend that such abuses are not endemic to RCST and avoidance of them is practically feasible in contemporary secular pluralistic societies. My primary aim is to show how continued dialogue between Engelhardtian libertarians and more communitarian-inclined RCST proponents may constructively yield a vision of healthcare allocation that ensures succor for the least advantaged within an authentically Christian social ethic.","PeriodicalId":416242,"journal":{"name":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","volume":"344 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CB/CBAA019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this paper, I confront Engelhardt’s views—conceptualized as a cohesive moral perspective grounded in a combination of secular and Christian moral requirements—on two fronts. First, I critique his view of the moral demands of justice within a secular pluralistic society by showing how Thomistic natural law theory provides a content-full theory of human flourishing that is rationally articulable and defensible as a canonical vision of the good, even if it is not universally recognized as such. Second, I defend the principles of Roman Catholic social teaching (RCST) against Engelhardt’s objection that it constitutes a watered-down version of the Christian moral vision which opens the door to intolerable moral compromises. While I acknowledge that Engelhardt’s criticism of RCST is well-grounded in certain abusive compromises that have been made by some Catholic healthcare institutions, I contend that such abuses are not endemic to RCST and avoidance of them is practically feasible in contemporary secular pluralistic societies. My primary aim is to show how continued dialogue between Engelhardtian libertarians and more communitarian-inclined RCST proponents may constructively yield a vision of healthcare allocation that ensures succor for the least advantaged within an authentically Christian social ethic.
共同利益的愿景:恩格尔哈特对天主教社会教学的参与
在本文中,我从两个方面对恩格尔哈特的观点进行了探讨。恩格尔哈特的观点被概念化为一种建立在世俗和基督教道德要求结合基础上的有凝聚力的道德观点。首先,我通过展示托马斯的自然法则理论如何提供了一个内容丰富的人类繁荣理论来批判他对世俗多元社会中正义的道德要求的观点,这个理论作为一种规范的善的愿景是合理的,可辩护的,即使它没有被普遍认可。其次,我捍卫罗马天主教社会教导(RCST)的原则,反对恩格尔哈特(Engelhardt)的反对意见,即它构成了基督教道德愿景的淡化版本,为不可容忍的道德妥协打开了大门。虽然我承认恩格尔哈特对RCST的批评是基于一些天主教医疗机构做出的某些滥用妥协,但我认为这种滥用并不是RCST特有的,在当代世俗多元社会中避免它们实际上是可行的。我的主要目的是展示恩格尔哈德式的自由意志主义者和更倾向于社区主义的RCST支持者之间的持续对话,如何建设性地产生一种医疗分配的愿景,确保在真正的基督教社会伦理中为最弱势群体提供援助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信