Greetings all,
I'm a lecturer in a Politics dept interested mainly in Christian ethics and
war in the twentieth century.
But I have a question relating to an earlier period. With a legalist
approach to morality (such as that of Thomas Aquinas), the content of some
rules is still consequentially generated (acts are forbidden by the rule
because they are wrong).
But this need not be so. Was it Johannes Scotus Erigena or John Duns Scotus
who thought that *all* which was wrong was wrong because it was forbidden
(and that nothing was forbidden because it was wrong)?
Thanks,
Colm McKeogh
University of Waikato, New Zealand.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|