English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article investigates the following question: How do disabled people and theresponse of Christians to them influence public morality? In a first round it isargued that the dominant ethical approach to health care, which is an approach thatfunctions within the modern or liberal approach to morality, does not produce anadequate description of and response to the challenge posed by disabled people. Theunderstanding of morality, anthropology and theology (specifically the doctrine ofGod) is consecutively described and evaluated. Morality, it is argued, is more thanthe narrow morality of the modern paradigm, which focuses only on the moralprinciples, and rules, which enable a society to exist without conflict and violence.Morality is broader. It has to do with the underlying perspectives of religious andnonreligious traditions on the nature of the good life, good societies and goodpeople. Morality in the sphere of medical care is also wide morality. With regard toanthropology it is argued that the worth of human beings is not defined by theircapacity of self-consciousness and reflective thinking, but by their vulnerability andtheir dependence upon each other. The Trinitarian basis of this anthropology isinvestigated. In a final round the implications of this alternative understanding ofmorality, anthropology and theology for the ethical challenges posed by disabledpeople are outlined. The meaning of these challenges for public morality is finallyspelled out.

THE DIS-(OTHERLY)ABLED AND PUBLIC MORALITY