On the Morality of Choosing Directly Against Basic Goods

Heythrop Journal 56 (4):643-649 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A claim that is widely accepted and often invoked by philosophers working within ‘new classical natural law theory’ is that choosing directly against ‘basic goods’ is never morally permissible. In this essay, I address the question of whether one can coherently accept the fundamental commitments of new classical natural law theory and yet reject this absolutist claim. I argue that one can.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Rawls' Paradox.Jason Brennan - 2007 - Constitutional Political Economy 18:287-299.
Making choices.Victoria Parker - 2010 - Chicago, Ill.: Heinemann Library.
Intending Damage to Basic Goods.C. Tollefsen - 2008 - Christian Bioethics 14 (3):272-282.
A Critical Review of Natural Law and Practical Rationality.John J. Davenport - 2003 - International Philosophical Quarterly 43 (2):229-239.
Priority and position.Christopher Freiman - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (2):341-360.
The Use and Abuse of Morality.Amelie Rorty - 2012 - The Journal of Ethics 16 (1):1-13.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-04-26

Downloads
29 (#536,973)

6 months
2 (#1,232,442)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Adam D. Bailey
Black Hills State University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Natural law and natural rights.John Finnis - 1979 - New York: Oxford University Press.
The theory of morality.Alan Donagan - 1977 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fundamentals of ethics.John Finnis - 1983 - Clarendon Press.
The Theory of Morality.Alan Donagan - 1982 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 13 (1):48-50.

View all 13 references / Add more references