首页> 外文学位 >Theological anthropology, self-interest, and economic justice in contemporary Protestant critiques of capitalism.
【24h】

Theological anthropology, self-interest, and economic justice in contemporary Protestant critiques of capitalism.

机译:当代新教对资本主义的批判中,神学人类学,自我利益和经济正义。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

This dissertation addresses the question why some contemporary Protestant ethicists differ in their critiques of capitalism, and seeks to find the answer in the ethicists' views of theological anthropology and in their economic justice criteria. The selected Protestant ethicists--Ronald Nash, J. Philip Wogaman, and Ronald Sider--represent various moral assessments of capitalism. Their theological anthropologies, their economic justice criteria, and their critiques of capitalism are systematically analyzed, giving special attention to sin and self-interest as a motivator for economic exchange in capitalism, as well as to the effects of sin and self-interest on capitalism as a system.;Ronald Nash views human persons as inherently evil or sinful and endorses capitalism, believing that sinful self-interest and greed are effectively countered by the market mechanism which says "if you do something good for me, I'll do something good for you." J. Philip Wogaman views human persons in covenantal relationship with God, grounded in the imago Dei. He rejects capitalism because it forces participants to act greedy and selfishly, and endorses democratic socialism as that form of political economy which recognizes the communitarian values he derives from his anthropology. Ronald Sider believes humankind to be fallen and sinful; yet when redeemed we experience transformed relationships with God and our fellow human beings. For Sider, it is not the system which needs changing, but the human participants. Once transformed, Christians bear witness to sin's reality in individual and structural economic practices.;This dissertation shows that the differences in the capitalistic critiques of Nash, Wogaman, and Sider ought to be formed or influenced by their theological anthropologies and economic justice criteria, but unfortunately they often are not. In order for their moral assessments of capitalism to be adequate, there must be an internal consistency between their theological anthropology, their economic justice criteria, and their critique of capitalism. Sider displays greater internal consistency between these elements than does either Nash or Wogaman. However, the differences regarding their moral assessments of capitalism can be explained as much by the way they apply those anthropologies as by what they are.
机译:本文探讨了为什么一些当代新教伦理学家对资本主义的批判有所不同,并试图从伦理学家的神学人类学观点和经济正义标准中寻找答案。入选的新教伦理学家罗纳德·纳什(Ronald Nash),菲利普·沃加曼(J. Philip Wogaman)和罗纳德·西德(Ronald Sider)代表了对资本主义的各种道德评估。对他们的神学人类学,经济正义标准和对资本主义的批判进行了系统地分析,特别关注作为资本主义经济交换动力的罪恶和自利,以及罪恶和自利对资本主义的影响罗纳德·纳什(Ronald Nash)认为人类天生就是邪恶的或有罪的,并支持资本主义,并相信市场机制有效地抵消了有罪的自私和贪婪,市场机制说:“如果对我有益,我就会有所作为对你有益。”菲利普·沃加曼(J. Philip Wogaman)认为人类与神之间立有契约关系,立足于意象岛。他之所以拒绝资本主义,是因为它迫使参与者表现出贪婪和自私的行为,并支持民主社会主义,将其作为承认他从人类学中获得的共产主义价值观的政治经济学形式。罗纳德·西德(Ronald Sider)相信人类堕落且有罪。然而,当我们赎回时,我们会经历与上帝和人类同伴的转变关系。对于Sider来说,不是需要更改的系统,而是人类参与者。基督徒一旦转变,便在个人和结构性的经济实践中见证了罪恶的现实。这篇论文表明,纳什,沃加曼和西德的资本主义批评的差异应该由他们的神学人类学和经济正义标准来形成或影响。不幸的是,他们经常不是。为了使他们对资本主义的道德评价充分,他们的神学人类学,经济正义标准和对资本主义的批判之间必须保持内部一致性。与Nash或Wogaman相比,Sider在这些元素之间显示出更大的内部一致性。但是,关于他们对资本主义的道德评价的差异可以通过他们运用这些人类学的方式以及它们是什么来解释。

著录项

  • 作者

    Goetz, Richard Fredrick.;

  • 作者单位

    Marquette University.;

  • 授予单位 Marquette University.;
  • 学科 Theology.;Political science.;Economic theory.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 1998
  • 页码 237 p.
  • 总页数 237
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号