PAPERS Resources

AAR Annual Meeting
Atlanta, GA
November 21-24, 2015

AAR Sessions (PDF)

Additional Meeting Sessions (PDF)

Session Index (PDF)

Participant Index (PDF)

Session Locations (PDF)

Exhibitor Index and Exhibit Hall Maps (PDF)

For questions or support, email

To return to the AAR website, click here.

Comparative Religious Ethics Group

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

In order to facilitate substantive conversation during each session, this year we will 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:

• How do we as scholars address the need for reflexivity or articulate our normative commitments in our scholarship?
-How does one locate moral and normative action and speech in the context of the everyday?
-How do religious communities respond to public issues of considerable moral import (such as global health, racism, abuses of the criminal justice system, immigration and discrimination) and what factors promote or hamper civic engagement?

• What are the consequences of living in a “Secular Age” for Comparative Religious Ethics?

• What are the relationships and tensions between forms of valuing (religious, moral, aesthetic, familial, political, and economic)?

• How does one compare the moral dimensions of yoga and other meditation or body practices? (For a potential co-sponsored session with the Yoga in Theory and Practice Group).

Proposer names are visible to chairs and steering committee members at all times
ChairSteering Committee