PAPERS Resources

AAR Annual Meeting
Boston, MA
November 18-21, 2017

2017 Annual Meeting Program (PDF)

Program Book Ads

Preliminary 2017 Annual Meeting Program (MS Word)

To return to the Welcome Page, please click here.

For questions or support, email

To return to the AAR website, click here.

Comparative Religious Ethics Unit

Statement of Purpose: 

While comparative assessment of the ethics of different religious groups is an ancient and widespread pursuit, the modern field of comparative religious ethics arguably dates from the founding of the Journal of Religious Ethics in 1973. (For the purposes of this statement, “ethics” as a subject will refer to reflection about how best to live as human beings; an “ethic” is one more or less determinate position on the best mode(s) of life.) While there have been a variety of motivations for the attempt to study “religious ethics” rather than or in addition to “Christian ethics,” one animating idea has been the growing recognition that people from numerous religions propound sophisticated and powerful moral visions, which possess intriguing similarities and differences and are not easily reducible to a common denominator. In addition, the variety and particular characteristics of such visions are historically and politically significant in the modern era of increasingly pervasive globalization. Indeed, comparative ethics may be desperately needed in our contemporary context of global interdependence, misunderstanding, and mutual mistrust. There are thus ample grounds, both social and purely intellectual, to suggest that this ethical variety needs to be engaged directly via rigorous comparison. Comparative ethics makes such diversity central to its analysis, which includes three main aspects:
• Describes and interprets particular ethics on the basis of historical, anthropological, or other data
• Compares such ethics (in the plural) and requires searching reflection on the methods and tools of inquiry
• Engages in normative argument on the basis of such studies, and may thereby speak to contemporary concerns about overlapping identities, cultural complexity and plurality, universalism and relativism, and political problems regarding the coexistence of divergent social groups, as well as particular moral controversies.

Ideally, each of these aspects enriches the others; for example, comparison across traditions helps generate more insightful interpretations of particular figures and themes. This self-conscious sophistication about differing ethical vocabularies and the analytical practices necessary to grapple with them is what makes comparative ethics distinctive within broader conversations in religious and philosophical ethics. Comparative ethics as envisioned here induces conversation across typical area studies boundaries by involving scholars of different religions; all sessions in this Unit are constructed with this goal in mind, so that data from multiple traditions will be brought to bear on any comparative theme.

Call for Papers: 

This Unit encourages the submission of any individual paper, papers session, and roundtable proposals that make cultural, religious, and moral diversity central to ethical analysis.

In order to facilitate substantive conversation during each session, we participate in the AAR Full Paper Submission system. Full drafts of all accepted papers must be posted online several weeks prior to the Annual Meeting, and will be accessible to AAR members only. Participants will read all papers in advance, presenters will have ten minutes to summarize their argument, and the meeting time will be devoted to a comments and suggestions on those papers. Themes especially welcome this year include:
• Competing conceptions of the freedom of religion among religious traditions.

• Critiques of authoritarianism and notions of political resistance across cultures.

• Comparison and the anthropology of ethics.

• The influence of religious traditions in contemporary comparative philosophical ethics.

• Comparative forms of moral decision-making and psychology of moral decision-making.

• Establishing a canon of CRE and the value of early predecessors of CRE (e.g., Westermarck, Ladd, Malinowski).

• The religious response to the global refugee crisis.

• Comparative environmental ethics and conceptions of nature.

• Responses to Richard Miller's “Friends and Other Strangers”.

Proposer names are visible to chairs but anonymous to steering committee members
ChairSteering Committee