In seeking to express Christian teaching in a pluralistic world, I think it is imperative that we come to an understanding of, not only atheist ethics, but alternative ethics as well.
For this reason I would recommend reading “Zen as a Social Ethics of Responsiveness” by T. P. Kasulis. I find it a overly simplistic in equating western ethics and Christian ethics, as if Christianity originated in the far west rather than the near east. Which ironically makes this discussion of Buddhist ethics more dualistic than it need be. Nevertheless, the discussion which follows on responsiveness and responsibility is thought provoking. Here is the synopsis of the essay:
“One reason traditional Chan or Zen did not develop a comprehensive social ethics is that it arose in an East Asian milieu with axiologies (Confucian, Daoist, and Shintō) already firmly in place. Since these value orientations did not conflict with basic Buddhist principles, Chan/Zen used its praxes and theories of praxis to supplement and enhance, rather than criticize, those indigenous ethical orientations. When we consider the intercultural relevance of Zen ethics today, however, we must examine how its traditional ethical assumptions interface with its Western conversation partners. For example, it is critical that Chan and Zen stress an ethics of responsiveness rather than (as is generally the case of the modern West) one of responsibility. This paper analyzes special philosophical problems arising when one tries to carry Zen moral values without modification into Western contexts.”