Prajna Vihara: Vol. 19, No. 1 (January - June 2018)

Permanent URI for this collection

Browse

Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    Developing interreligious dialogue in Myanmar: reflections on the Vatican document educating to intercultural dialogue in Catholic Schools
    (Assumption University Press, 2018) Win, Matthias Saw San
    For the Roman Catholic Church beginning with Vatican II, interreligious dialogue has been promoted as an instrument to obtain mutual understanding. This has been outlined in the document Nostra Aetate. The Bishops of Myanmar, fully aware that interreligious dialogue is highly necessary for witnessing the gospel of Jesus Christ in this Buddhist-majority nation, have taken steps in their respective dioceses to further promote this approach. This paper is an analysis of the ways this has been implemented. It will show that a positive attitude towards interreligious dialogue must be developed in the lives of seminarians while they are undergoing clerical training. As future priests, seminarians should understand and advocate the true meaning of dialogue with other religions in order to carry out their missions seamlessly and successfully.
  • Item
    Fischer's semicompatibilism and its consequences
    (Assumption University Press, 2018) Pisit Marnil ; Kajornpat Tangyin
    In this paper I argue that the symmetric approach to moral responsibility, proposed by John Martin Fischer, should be focused merely on the consequence-particular. Fischer employs the symmetric approach with the intention to solve the asymmetric problems on moral responsibility. The problem arises from Frankfurt’s case, which rejects the principle of alternate possibilities (PAP), and relies on the action, rather than omission resulting in asymmetric problems. Fischer solves the problem by using his guidance control and returns the symmetry the idea of moral responsibility. I am convinced by his idea of guidance control that moral responsibility for an omission is the same as moral responsibility for an action. Notwithstanding, I found that Fischer appears to broaden his conclusion from the consequence-particular to the consequence-universal. This issue becomes more explicit when he argues against the case of “direct argument”. But I contend that this argument is unnecessary. The attempt to stretch out responsibility to the consequence-universal is only designed to address a certain kind of problem in his moral responsibility’s theory. This can also be seen when Fischer tries to solve other problem by using his overdetermination example. I believe that his theory of moral responsibility and guidance control should limit itself merely to the consequenceparticular.