Legal and moral reasoning share much methodology and address similar problems. This volume charts two shared problems: the relation between theory, principles and particular judgments; and the role of facts and factual assertions in normative settings. The relation between theory and practice and between principle and particular judgment has become the subject of much debate in moral philosopy. In the ongoing debate, some moral philosophers refer to leal philosophy for a support of their views on the primacy of practice over theory. According to them, legal philosophy should have a more balanced view in that relation. In the contributions to part one of the book, this claim is critically analyzed. The role of the facts is underestimated in discussions on legal reasoning and legal theory, as well as moral reasoning and ethical theory. Factual statements enter into moral and legal discussions not only because they link the conclusion with a rule. They also play a role as background assumptions in supporting a theory. The book's focus on the role of facts in normative reasoning should make it of particular interest to scholars of legal and moral argumentation.

In the dominant view, morality is more rational and universal than, and therefore independent from, (christian) religion. Believers do not have exclusive moral knowledge. Moral principles can be known by anyone. Morality, not religion, is the supreme judge of human actions in the world. Some contributors to this volume defend this view on theological and philosophical grounds. The advantages of such a view for thinking about a common global morality are clear. However, according to many authors, the conception of morality underlying this view is at the least, impoverished, if not wrong: this view cannot explain the importance and the persistence of moral taboos. Furthermore, every morality is influenced by metaphysical and anthropological assumptions - whether or not religious: the so-called modern, rational, secular morality. The central moral question in the alternative narrative concept of morality is 'Who am I / who do I want to be ?' and not 'What is the right action ?' In this approach, not universal principles, but tradition-dependant stories constitute the core of a morality. Are these concepts more adequate for understanding the relation of religion to morality ? Do they have room for the project of a universal morality of human rights ?