Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:34:51.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Responsibility in religiosity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2019

STEVEN G. SMITH*
Affiliation:
Department of Religious Studies, Millsaps College, Jackson, MS39210, USA

Abstract

Understanding ‘responsibility’ in its normal sense of freely fulfilling a role in a collaborative scheme, rather than as a basic agent integrity or prosocial disposition, I argue that the desirability of responsibility is one of the main supporting and constraining factors in the formation of religious thought and practice, with diversely typical manifestations. For those who are disposed to assume responsibility and to be religious, religious beliefs and practices offer a way of maximally enlarging one's responsibility, an intrinsically appealing prospect. The global relevance of religious responsibility is shown by comparing exemplars in a wide range of cultures. Aeneas, Kongzi, Dharmakara, and Miaoshan each embody maximal responsibility in a distinct way that motivates and sets standards for a religiosity.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Derrida, J. (1995) The Gift of Death, Wills, D. (tr.) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Dudbridge, G. (2004) The Legend of Miaoshan, rev. edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Ganiban, R. T. et al. (eds) (2012) Aeneid Books 1–6 (Newburyport: Focus).Google Scholar
Gómez, L. O. (tr.) (1996) Land of Bliss (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press).Google Scholar
Grebe, S. (2004) ‘Augustus's divine authority and Vergil's Aeneid’, Vergilius, 50, 3562.Google Scholar
Haleem, M. A. S. Abdel (tr.) (2004) The Qur'an (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Yu, Han (1999) ‘Essentials of the moral way’ (Hartman, C., tr.), in de Bary, W. T. & Bloom, I. (eds) Sources of Chinese Tradition, 2nd edn (New York: Columbia University Press), 569573.Google Scholar
Idema, W. (2008) Personal Salvation and Filial Piety: Two Precious Scroll Narratives of Guanyin and Her Acolytes (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press).Google Scholar
Jonas, H. (1984) The Imperative of Responsibility (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L. (1981) Essays on Moral Development, I: The Philosophy of Moral Development (San Francisco: Harper & Row).Google Scholar
Levinas, E. (1981) Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, Lingis, A. (tr.) (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff).Google Scholar
Levine, S. (2013) Becoming Kuan Yin (San Francisco: Weiser).Google Scholar
Niebuhr, H. R. (1963) The Responsible Self (New York: Harper & Row).Google Scholar
Pennock, J. R. (1960) ‘The problem of responsibility’, in Friedrich, C. J. (ed.) Responsibility (New York: Liberal Arts), 327.Google Scholar
Schweiker, W. (1995) Responsibility and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Slingerland, E. (tr.) (2003) Confucius: Analects (Indianapolis: Hackett).Google Scholar
Vincent, N. A. (2011) ‘A structured taxonomy of responsibility concepts’, in Vincent, N. A. et al. (eds) Moral Responsibility: Beyond Free Will and Determinism (Dordrecht: Springer), 1535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, E. T. C. (1922) Myths and Legends of China, ch. 10, <www.sacred-texts.com/cfu/mlc/mlc12.htm> [accessed 12 May 2018].+[accessed+12+May+2018].>Google Scholar
Wing, S. (2011) ‘Gendering Buddhism: the Miaoshan legend reconsidered’, Journal of Feminist Studies, 27, 531.Google Scholar