Abstract
The division in ethics between competing philosophical approaches on the one hand, and between philosophical and religious paradigms on the other, may be the most remarkable feature of contemporary moral discourse. My contention is that Paul Ricoeur's dialectical approach to hermeneutics provides a means for working through the impasses that seem to characterize so much moral inquiry today, both in the philosophical and the religious domains. Ricoeur's contribution to philosophical ethics lies in his attempt to forge a conciliation between Kant and Aristotle, a project which he really undertakes twice in his career. In Fallible Man(1960), Ricoeur's intention is to reveal the fundamental structures of practical subjectivity through a Kantian style transcendental or "pure" reflection, in abstraction from actual practical experience. I will show that Ricoeur's Kantianism in this book implies a conciliation with Aristotelianism. By contrast in Oneself as Another (1990), Ricoeur uses a hermeneutical reflection which aims to approach the fullness of human existence in its temporality and individuality. I will show that in Ricoeur's hermeneutical dialectic of ethical theories, Aristotle and Kant can each take their place as conversation partners in a "conflict of interpretations." The unity of these two approaches to the encounter of Kant and Aristotle is recognized when each is seen as part of Ricoeur's larger concern with the question of how we can conceive of the human self as both a distinct entity in itself and as made up of a dialogue with otherness. This overarching concern with selfhood then becomes the key to understanding the relation between philosophical ethics and Christian religious faith, which forms a second stage of Ricoeur's ethical dialectic grafted onto the first. I will show that Ricoeur's Christian writings suggest a sense of "religious ethics" in which both the appeal of philosophical reflection and the specificity of biblical faith can be accommodated. Today's pluralism in ethical reflection would seem to call for a kind of thinking which can mediate between competing alternatives without taking the routes of reductionism or intellectual imperialism. My contention is that Paul Ricoeur's work embodies this kind of thinking.