No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2006. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (MA)--Stellenbosch University, 2003. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In contrast with the moral philosophy that morality is dependent on society preached by Durkheim and his disciples Bauman argues that the origin of morality cannot be found within social structures. According to Bauman certain social mechanisms hinder morality rather than promote it. He discusses two social structures to argue this point: socialization (within the modem condition) and sociality (within the postmodern condition). Within both structures, the Other is of functional value, and responsibility for this Other is denied. Within the structure of socialization responsibility is denied because of adiaphorization within the organization (certain actions are declared morally neutral), and also because ethical codes are adhered to. Within sociality responsibility never even arises and we find the postmodern version of adiaphorization. According to Bauman, morality originates with the personal responsibility for the Other. His argument is based on Levinas's version of who this Other is and what responsibility entails. According to Levinas, responsibility is non-reciprocal and asymmetrical. However, this relationship changes the moment that the third (or society) enters. At this moment we operate according to certain conditions and standards. Instead of placing the origin of morality in society, Bauman thus argues for a 'personal' morality. This leads to the problem that he does not provide enough space for morality within society. Without refuting his emphasis on a 'personal' morality, I focus on an alternative origin. If we agree that morality originates within the personal imagination, it does not only include Levinas's pre-ontological theory, but enlarges the idea of what morality encompasses to also leave space for morality within the the social sphere. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Bauman se morele filosofie het (anders as dié van Durkheim en sy navolgers) ten grondslag dat die oorsprong van moraliteit nie binne sosiale strukture gevind kan word nie. Hy argumenteer dat sosiale meganismes binne sekere sosiale strukture juis moraliteit ondermyn. Die sosiale strukture waarna hy hier verwys is socialization (binne die moderne kondisie) en sociality (binne die postmoderne kondisie). Binne beide 'strukure' het die Ander funksionele waarde en word verantwoordelikheid vir hierdie Ander ontduik. Binne socialization word verantwoordelikheid vir die Ander ontduik deur middel van adiaforisasie in die organisasie (deurdat sekere aksies moreel neutraal verklaar word) en ook deur die navolg van bepaalde etiese kodes. Binne sociality kom verantwoordelikheid glad nie eers ter sprake nie en ontstaan die postmoderne weergawe van adiaforisasie. Moraliteit is volgens Bauman veel eerder in die persoonlike verantwoordelikheid vir die Ander gesetel. Hy bou veral voort op Levinas se beskouing van wie hierdie Ander is en wat hierdie verantwoordelikheid behels. Dié verantwoordelikheid is, naamlik onvoorwaardelik en asimmetries. Hierdie verhouding verander egter sodra die derde (die sosiale) op die toneel verskyn - dan het ons te make met standaarde en voorwaardes. My probleem met Bauman se beskouing is daarin geleë dat dit nie ruimte vir moraliteit binne die gemeenskap laat nie. Sonder om sy klem op 'n 'persoonlike' moraliteit af te skiet, fokus ek op 'n alternatiewe oorsprong vir moraliteit. Indien ons toegee dat moraliteit ontstaan binne die mens se verbeelding, verbreed dit die verstaan van wat moraliteit behels. Sodoende word Levinas se pre-ontologiese teorie ingesluit, maar word daar ook plek gelaat vir moraliteit binne die sosiale sfeer.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis advisor: Lisa Sowle Cahill / In what sense is Catholic social teaching theological? Undoubtedly theology is a resource for ethical reflection but it can also be an outcome of it. This dissertation explores the theological contribution of post-Vatican II papal social encyclicals on development. Particular historical challenges and also specific worldviews adopted by the popes shape ethical reasoning and political priorities for action, but they do more. They stimulate theological thinking by making options among diverse theological frameworks, favoring certain concepts or symbols and downplaying others, and thus, they contribute to entering the mystery of God’s salvific love and allowing it to seize us. Chapter one offers some guidelines for a theological reading of social encyclicals. Vatican II with its “principle of pastorality” works as a compass. Karl Rahner, whose theology is always at the same time anthropology and Christology, is a privileged partner for the investigation. The history of half a century of debates on theories of development is the background. Chapters two to four analyze successively Paul VI’s Populorum progressio (PP), John Paul II’s Sollicitudo rei socialis (SRS), and Benedict XVI’s Caritas in veritate (CiV) by retrieving elements of context, highlighting the theological meaning of their methodological options, and exploring their insights about the mystery of being human and the mystery of “Jesus Christ for us.” In the 1960s, PP develops a theology which highlights incarnation and God’s grace at work in this world (neo-Thomist framework). Twenty years later, when early hopes about development have faded, SRS pursues this lead but also rebalances it with a greater concern for sin and redemption brought by Christ in the world (Augustinian framework). It also incorporates categories put forward by Latin American liberation theology such as structures of sin, liberation, and option for the poor which stress the structural dimension of sin and grace (Liberationist framework). At the dawn of the 21st century and showing concerns for growing secularization in Western countries, CiV insists on God’s transcendence (Augustinian framework) while still showing traces of the two other theological frameworks because of his addressing challenges of global justice. The final chapter offers three guidelines for theology which arise from the recognition of the theological nature of the church’s social teaching. (1) Without losing sight of its transcendental origin, theology ought to begin within history and with human experience. (2) A Christian anthropology ought to manifest the unity of the personal and social dimensions of being human which calls for both personal conversion and structural change. (3) Christologies can articulate approaches from above and from below in a variety of ways but the inescapability of the latter needs to be stressed in connection with taking seriously the option for the poor. / Thesis (STD) — Boston College, 2015. / Submitted to: Boston College. School of Theology and Ministry. / Discipline: Sacred Theology.

Thesis advisor: David Hollenbach / This dissertation looks at the reality of massive and persistent global poverty and underdevelopment in the era of globalization and the attempts to address this reality in both Catholic Social Teaching (CST) and various elements of secular theory and policy. It details that there has been a convergence of human rights and development discourse in both CST and secular thought and global public policy, and seeks a policy framework and ethical agenda for achieving “development as the realization of human rights” from a Catholic perspective. Having delineated the differences between various “Rights Based Approaches to Development” and multiples shortcomings in global public policy, the dissertation argues that the “Right to Development”(RTD) approach best reflects CST’s understanding of human rights as both a chief end and primary means of achieving development. Further, it insists on achievement of development so understood an urgent matter of justice, as itself a human right. It thus makes the case that the RTD can serve as a “carrier” of the tradition, acting as a consensus framework with which to address gaps and failures in responsibility and accountability in global governance, to serve as a guarantor of the indivisibility of all human rights, and to formulate a codification of the multiples obligations on varied global actors to strengthen the indivisibility and universality of rights and the participatory process necessary to secure them. It also argues that the Catholic Church therefore can and must work to see that the RTD approach undergo a re-invigoration in both international law and as an ethical vision in civil society. In short, then, it argues that the RTD and CST should act as allies in the common goal of development understood as the participatory realization of the full spectrum of human rights. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2016. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Theology.

Unmaking the Other? is a qualitative sociological analysis of the discourses of intellectual disability present in contemporary Australian society. It attempts to reveal the ways that people with intellectual disabilities 'are' for Australians. This is important because people with intellectual disabilities have a long history of being seen as 'other' or 'not one of us'. For many years they were kept 'out of sight, and out of mind� on the margins of our communities, locked in institutions or hidden in sheltered workshops. Yet, during the last few decades there has been a concerted effort to bring people with intellectual disabilities back into society. Institutions and sheltered workshops closed, and policies of inclusion, normalisation and community living were vigorously pursued. People with intellectual disabilities are now equal citizens in the eyes of the law. But how readily have we accepted that people with intellectual disability are 'one of us'? Have community living reforms overturned deep cultural dispositions that cast people with intellectual disabilities as 'lesser', 'defective', and lacking personhood? This thesis investigates recent community living reforms, especially the assumption that inclusion and education would radically transform our conceptualisations of people with intellectual disabilities. To do this, it draws on contemporary social and political theory to explore how the meanings of disability are created and maintained, focusing on the Foucauldian concept of discourse. This Foucauldian theorisation of discourse, power and knowledge informs a methodology devised to provide a more detailed and sophisticated analysis of the meanings of intellectual disability than previous investigations. Texts from three key social arenas are analysed for the way in which our society constructs intellectual disability, and these analyses lead to a number of theoretical and practical conclusions. Specifically, the main contributions of this thesis are: the identification and analysis of fourteen distinct discourses of intellectual disability, the theoretical explication of their relations to one another, and theoretical discussion of what their presence reveals about intellectual disability in today�s Australia. The findings of a variety of discursive constructions of intellectual disability suggest a complex picture in which discourses of inclusion and membership have emerged that are consistent with community living reforms, while at the same time there has been a continuation of discourses that view people with intellectual disabilities as defective humans. Drawing on theory and empirical evidence, possibilities are suggested for further political and educational interventions into the discursive construction of people with intellectual disabilities. The problems posed by our attempts at liberation through community living reforms are major; this thesis contributes to this task by revealing the complexity, contradictions, and resistances inherent in this task. What is more, it sees these findings not as causes for dismay, but as reasons for cautious hope.

No description available.