Theological Reflections on Moral Theories

A special issue of Religions (ISSN 2077-1444). This special issue belongs to the section "Religions and Humanities/Philosophies".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 May 2025 | Viewed by 2842

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, KY 40390, USA
Interests: philosophy of religion; moral philosophy; value theory; justice and desert

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The editors of this Special Issue invite contributions that explore the theological merits and/or shortcomings of normative theories proposed by moral philosophers.

The project of modern moral philosophy has largely been to identify principles that explain why we ought to act in certain ways. Sometimes an overarching principle is offered as the central framework for ethics (e.g., versions of utilitarianism or egalitarianism). Sometimes multiple principles are offered as guides for our decision making (e.g., autonomy; respect; nonmaleficence; beneficence). Sometimes new considerations are offered in thinking through how we should apply existing, accepted principles (e.g., Longtermism).

How should the theist respond to the various proposals of modern moral philosophy? The aim of this Special Issue is to explore the theological concerns one might have with the moral principles and, more generally, the ethical theories put forth by moral philosophers. Perhaps, in some cases, theists should count the moral philosopher as an ally in the work of identifying norms toward which we should all strive in improving lives. Perhaps, in other cases, theists will view some ideal identified by the moral philosopher as partly obscuring, or even working against, the vision they understand God to have for our life together in community.

For this Special Issue, we invite theological reflections on moral theories. Original research articles and reviews are welcome. Research areas may include (but are not limited to) the following:

  • To what extent do proposals of moral principles—e.g. Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism, theories of rights—overlap with the teachings of a particular religion like Christianity?
  • Are there theological concerns to raise about the way in which the “moral ought” has been derived in modern moral philosophy?
  • Must theists reject Constructivist accounts of morality?
  • What advantages or difficulties does “a community seeking to follow God’s commands as best it can discern them” have in comparison to “a community accountable to one another at it seeks to do what is best by its own lights”?
  • Are there theological reasons to be wary of the recent “Longtermism” movement?
  • Do religious institutions hold more promise for advancing human flourishing than appeals to moral codes tied to no historical setting?
  • How optimistic should we be that secular accounts of human well-being informed by empirical studies might approximate a theological anthropology offered by a particular religion like Christianity?

We request that, prior to submitting a manuscript, interested authors initially submit a proposed title and an abstract of 200–300 words summarizing their intended contribution. Please send it to the Guest Editor (kevin.kinghorn@asburyseminary.edu) or to the Editorial Office of Religions (religions@mdpi.com). Abstracts will be reviewed by the Guest Editor for the purpose of ensuring proper fit within the scope of the Special Issue. Full manuscripts will undergo double-blind peer review. We look forward to receiving your contributions.

Prof. Dr. Kevin Kinghorn
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Religions is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • moral principles
  • normativity
  • theistic ethics
  • moral theology
  • value theory
  • well-being
  • rights
  • divine commands

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

16 pages, 578 KiB  
Article
A Utilitarian Islamic Jurist: al-Shāṭibī
by Metin Aydın and Feyza Cevherli
Religions 2025, 16(3), 290; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16030290 - 26 Feb 2025
Viewed by 382
Abstract
Utilitarianism is a theory of morality and law that aims for the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. The two names that come to mind when utilitarianism is mentioned in Western thought are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the founders [...] Read more.
Utilitarianism is a theory of morality and law that aims for the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. The two names that come to mind when utilitarianism is mentioned in Western thought are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the founders of the theory. Although this theory emerged in Western philosophy, theories that appeal to the concept of utility as the standard of rightness of moral and legal actions can be found in almost every tradition of thought. One of these traditions is Islamic philosophy. In particular, the theory of maṣlaḥa, which is one of the most important legal theories of Islamic legal thought, is a theory that accepts the concept of utility as a fundamental principle. In this article, we focus on the theory of maṣlaḥa of Abū Isḥāq al-Shāṭibī, one of the most prominent thinkers of the theory of maṣlaḥa. Our aim in this article is to point out the similarities and differences between maṣlaḥa theory and utilitarianism, thereby drawing attention to the functionality of the concept of utility as a standard of right or wrong for ethics and law, regardless of society and period. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Theological Reflections on Moral Theories)
17 pages, 251 KiB  
Article
Why Kant’s Moral–Religious Project Was Bound to Unravel
by Jaeha Woo
Religions 2025, 16(2), 235; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16020235 - 14 Feb 2025
Viewed by 450
Abstract
After criticizing the three traditional proofs of divine existence in the first Critique, Kant fills this void with an apologetic argument based on his practical philosophy. However, this moral–religious project has long been charged with various inconsistencies, particularly regarding the tension between [...] Read more.
After criticizing the three traditional proofs of divine existence in the first Critique, Kant fills this void with an apologetic argument based on his practical philosophy. However, this moral–religious project has long been charged with various inconsistencies, particularly regarding the tension between the demand for moral perfection and human limitation. There is even some indication that he becomes aware of these issues, as he later moves away from the vision of endless moral progress that holds his original project together. However, this revision does not resolve all the tensions, as the question of how imperfect humans can be well-pleasing to God remains. I argue that this predicament is a difficult-to-avoid feature of his project given how it interacts with his religious context of Lutheran Christianity. This is because he incorporates some of its elements (particularly its uncompromising moral standard) virtually intact while radically altering others (such as vicarious atonement and imputation of alien righteousness). However, this procedure undermines the coherence of the tradition he inherits because the elements he fully incorporates are meant to lead to the traditional doctrines he leaves behind. I conclude by reflecting on how theists who are sympathetic to Kant should lead his moral–religious project out of its current precarious predicament. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Theological Reflections on Moral Theories)
15 pages, 290 KiB  
Article
From Ethical Naturalism to Aquinas’ Notion of Natural Law: A Non-Trivial Convergence?
by Mariano Asla and María Soledad Paladino
Religions 2024, 15(12), 1560; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15121560 - 20 Dec 2024
Viewed by 1263
Abstract
Is it possible for Aquinas’s moral theology to engage constructively with contemporary moral naturalism? The proposed question has already been a subject of scholarly interest, eliciting various responses. Some authors emphasize the difficulties and contradictions, while others identify potential affinities. This paper explores [...] Read more.
Is it possible for Aquinas’s moral theology to engage constructively with contemporary moral naturalism? The proposed question has already been a subject of scholarly interest, eliciting various responses. Some authors emphasize the difficulties and contradictions, while others identify potential affinities. This paper explores the extent to which Aquinas’s concept of Natural Law might align, albeit partially, with a form of moral non-reductive, non-non-cognitivist ethical naturalism. Specifically, it aims to assess how his view of Natural Law, rooted in practical reason and natural inclinations, incorporates a teleological understanding of nature, which provides a foundational basis for this consonance. Within this framework, moral virtue emerges as central in bridging bio-psychological facts with ethical principles. Aquinas’s assertion that gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit “grace does not destroy nature but perfects it” (ST I. q1. a8) further underscores the continuity between nature and normativity, suggesting that while grace and revelation introduce true novelty, they enhance rather than supplant the natural moral order. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Theological Reflections on Moral Theories)
Back to TopTop