Source: (2009) Dissertation. Graduate Theological Union. Berkeley, CA.

This dissertation explores two interrelated questions. 1) What is a more adequate way to assess nonviolent peacemaking compared to the more common rule-based assessments? 2)What is a more fruitful way to mediate or persuade others in public discourse to implement nonviolent peacemaking practices not only in our public life but also particularly in public policy? The context of this dissertation considers the present framework of U.S. moral reasoning, which largely entails rule or strategy-based approaches around issues of acute conflict and specifically in assessing nonviolence. I use major components of official Catholic Social Teaching and moral philosopher James Childress to illustrate the rules-based assessment. I use Gene Sharp and Peter Ackerman to illustrate the strategy-based assessment. (excerpt)