Paul Ricoeur's Moral Anthropology. Singularity, Responibility, and Justice

0483999 - FLÚ 2018 RIV US eng B - Monography
Dierckxsens, Geoffrey
Paul Ricoeur's Moral Anthropology. Singularity, Responibility, and Justice.
Lanham: Lexington Books, 2017. 266 s. Studies in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur. ISBN 978-1-4985-4520-4
Institutional support: RVO:67985955
Keywords : Moral anthropology * Paul Ricoeur * singularity * responsibility * justice
OECD category: Ethics (except ethics related to specific subfields)

The book is a guide for readers who are interested in Paul Ricoeur’s thoughts on morals in general. More exactly, it brings together the different aspects of what Geoffrey Dierckxsens understands as Ricoeur’s moral anthropology. This anthropology addresses the question what it means to be human, capable of participating in moral life. Dierckxsens argues that Ricoeur shows that this participation implies being a self, living a singular lived existence with others and being responsible in institutions of justice. By living existence one comes to learn taking moral decisions and the reasons for moral life. The wager of Ricoeur’s hermeneutical approach to moral anthropology is – so Dierckxsens argues – to understand moral life on the basis of the interpretation of lived existence, rather than on the basis of cultural or natural patterns only, as many contemporary moral theories in analytical philosophy do. Ricoeur’s moral anthropology is thus particularly timely in that it offers a critical argument against contemporary moral relativism and reductionism. By bringing together Ricoeur’s moral anthropology, and recent moral theories this book offers a novel perspective on Ricoeur’s already well-established moral theory. Dierckxsens moreover offers a critical perspective by arguing that we should revisit certain moral concepts in Ricoeur’s moral anthropology and in contemporary moral theories in analytical philosophy. He critically evaluates certain concepts in Ricoeur’s work (like the concept of universal moral norms and how it stands against cultural differences in morals). He moreover interrogates certain ideas of contemporary analytical philosophy (like the idea of cultural moral relativism and whether we can find a common morality across the cultural differences).
Permanent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11104/0281752