Narratives means stories or sequences of events or reasoning, which implies they come from a point of view. Its pretty clear that Christian 'ethical convictions' are grounded in narratives, to wit the multiple narratives of the Bible.
Well, they’re grounded in narratives in the sense that we encounter them first of all through the narrative, and we appeal to the narrative to support and justify them. But I think a Christian ethicist would say that the narrative is not the ultimate ground; we can look past the narrative by asking questions like “why is this story told?” or “why is this story canonised?”, and we can also ask questions like “why do we appeal to this
story, rather than that
contrasting story (both given to us in the tradition) in connection with such-and-such a moral issue?” And the answers to questions like this will tend to suggest that the stories are told, and remembered, and canonised, and appealed to, because they [are found to] illuminate some underlying truth about the human condition or the nature of things. Hence the stories aren’t the ground
of the ethical conviction; they’re the way we understand/remember/communicate the underlying ground. And I dare say that this is true of non-Christian and non-religious ethical traditions as well.
I was puzzled, I admit, by iambiguous
’s use of the term “narrative” in the original post. I understood him to be asking whether each person’s ethical convictions are anything more than a story that he tells himself, i.e. something purely subjective and with no claim to being an ethical standard beyond the fact that he has decided that it shall be. But perhaps I was projecting onto him the question that I wanted him to ask, rather than the question that he intended to ask.