Reviews for Kenosis and Feminist Theology: The Challenge of Gianni Vattimo

The average rating for Kenosis and Feminist Theology: The Challenge of Gianni Vattimo based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-04-16 00:00:00 Curtis Bailey Hare's thesis is simple but provocative. On the universalist picture that characterizes most contemporary ethical systems, there is a gap between the moral demand and the moral agent's capacity to conform to it. The Christian tradition has bridged this gap by appeal to God's assistance. Contemporary moral philosophy, which rejects this solution, aims to solve this problem in one of three ways, viz. exaggerating the human capacity to live morally, reducing the moral demand, or finding some naturalistic substitute for God's assistance. On Hare's view, none of these succeeds in bridging the gap, and secular moral philosophy is left in a "muddle" that slowly erodes its confidence in itself. Hare writes with considerable erudition, effortlessly navigating not only contemporary analytic philosophy, but also the broader Western philosophical tradition from the Greeks to the 20th Century, as well as the Christian tradition. His prose is admirably clear, his analysis penetrating, and his central thesis urgent. Particular points of interest include his elaboration of the universal prescriptivism developed by his father R.M. Hare, his chapter on forgiveness - which the best discussion I have encountered on the subject - and the short section dedicated to feminist objections to universalism. The book is not without its flaws. Hare's adherence to what Chris Firestone and Nathan Jacobs have called the Religion-as-Translation thesis makes his treatment of Kant's philosophy of religion somewhat unsatisfying, although Hare has the great merit of demonstrating why, on such an interpretation, Kant's program cannot succeed. Although it is somewhat peripheral to his primary concern, I also find unconvincing his arguments for acknowledging a brand of "particular" moral judgments in which only the action - and not the addressee, agent, and recipient - can be articulated in universal terms. I am myself not entirely convinced that there is a moral gap of the sort Hare describes. Or perhaps more accurately, I am not convinced that such a gap need necessarily occur, given the right moral education, though I acknowledge that it does occur in us who have not received such an education. What Hare wishes to attribute to "human nature", which he seems to regard as relatively fixed, I am inclined to attribute to culture and upbringing, with the consequence that it is at least potentially eliminable. On this picture, though, a different gap occurs. For if the large majority of us have been brought up in such a way not to be capable - or even willing - to live the moral life, from where will we derive the capacity or will to educate our children to live it?

Review # 2 was written on 2016-10-15 00:00:00 Richard Mac Dowell Hare develops a Christian moral philosophy through a critical reflection on Kant. His thesis is that the demands of "morality" create a gap that Christian doctrine enables humans to traverse. He begins the book discussing Kant's moral philosophy. The threefold structure of morality, according to Hare, is that of demand (normative element), capacity, and gap. He then criticizes a number of attempts to erase the gap between human ability and moral demand by "puffing up the capacity" or lowering the demand. Hare concludes the book by attempting to demonstrate how he Christian doctrines of atonement, forgiveness, and sanctification, according to Hare, are cogent attempts to bridge the moral gap.