The Form of Reason: Participation in the Work of Richard Hooker,Benjamin Whichcote,Ralph Cudworth and Jeremy Taylor

The article traces the centrality of the patristic doctrine of theosis in the work of four significant figures in seventeenth century Anglican theology. Particular attention is paid to their understanding of reason as a participation in the incarnate Logos. Attention is drawn to their pedagogical method, which sees theology as ‘rather a divine life than a divine knowledge’ (Taylor), and to their reticence in defining too precisely the content of doctrine. Finally the Anglican via media is seen not as a political compromise, but as one way of fruitfully expressing the mediating grace between Creator and creation.     

Is Democratic Toleration a Rubber Duck?

Democratic politicians face pressures unknown to the prerogative rulers of the early modern period when toleration was first formulated as a political ideal. These pressures are less often expressed as demands by groups or individuals for the permission of practices they dislike than for their restraint or outright prohibition; tolerant dispositions are less politically clamorous. The executive structure of toleration as a virtue, together with the ‘fact of reasonable pluralism’, make conflicts over toleration peculiarly intractable. Political conflicts are apt to take the form of mutual allegations ofintolerance; indeed, the problem of ‘tolerating the intolerant’, far from being a marginal case, is central to the theory and practice of toleration. Toleration thus exemplifies a category mistake committed in much contemporary political theory, particularly in its contractualist versions: the threshold of the political lies precisely where rational agreement proves impossible. The main prospects for democratic toleration are thus pre-emptive. The main way in which this can happen is by cultivating executive dispositions: in other words, encouraging people to detach themselves from strong evaluative commitments, so that toleration does not become politically contentious to start with. But this involves losses as well as gains. The gains in civil harmony and peace are obvious. The cost for tolerant political actors is alienation from what they have good reason to value. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Fairness as “Appropriate Impartiality” and the Problem of the Self-Serving Bias

Garrett Cullity contends that fairness is appropriate impartiality (See Cullity (2004) Chapters 8 and 10 and Cullity (2008)). Cullity deploys his account of fairness as a means of limiting the extreme moral demand to make sacrifices in order to aid others that was posed by Peter Singer in his seminal article ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’. My paper is founded upon the combination of (1) the observation that the idea that fairness consists in appropriate impartiality is very vague and (2) the fact that psychological studies show the self-serving bias is especially likely to infect one’s judgements when the ideas involved are vague. I argue that Cullity’s solution to extreme moral demandingness is threatened by these findings. I then comment on whether some other theories of fairness are vulnerable to the same objection.     

The Form of Reason: Participation in the Work of Richard Hooker, Benjamin Whichcote, Ralph Cudworth and Jeremy Taylor

The article traces the centrality of the patristic doctrine of theosis in the work of four significant figures in seventeenth century Anglican theology. Particular attention is paid to their understanding of reason as a participation in the incarnate Logos. Attention is drawn to their pedagogical method, which sees theology as 'rather a divine life than a divine knowledge' (Taylor), and to their reticence in defining too precisely the content of doctrine. Finally the Anglican via media is seen not as a political compromise, but as one way of fruitfully expressing the mediating grace between Creator and creation.