Moral Theology

Paper Summary:

The paper looks at the ideas of three contemporary theorists, Carol Gilligan, James Fowler and James T. Brotzke regarding the meaning of virtue. The paper shows how each of these three theorists bring a unique and often conflicting perspective onto what it means to be moral and thus have good virtues. The paper concludes that there is no answer to the question of what is good virtue since too many independent and personal factors go into determining what one person considers to be virtuous.

From the Paper:

"The fundamental moral question of human existence is what is the nature of good virtues? Although virtues by its very nature means good, or the opposite of vice, this does not make the answer to the question any simpler. Every individual has a different idea of what virtues are, meaning that to one person a virtue may be a virtue but to another the virtue is perceived as a vice. The result is that there is no definition as to what is virtuous, therefore leading to the ongoing question of "what is the nature of good virtue?""

Sample of Sources Used:

• Bretzke, James T. A Morally Complex World: Engaging Contemporary Moral Theology. New York: Liturgical Press, 2004.
• Fowler, James W. Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1995.
• Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

More papers on Moral Theology:

• Analytical Essay # 143169 : "The Moral Theology of Jesus as Protector"
• Book Review # 125006 : "The Pentateuch as a Moral Compass"
• Book Review # 74584 : "Principles of Christian Morality"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: