Abstract

It may have nothing to do with Women's Lib, but it is interesting to note that most of the women philosophers of today are at least partly moral philosophers, and that of those who are, all or almost all are critical of what I shall call the Main Line taken by morality and moral philosophy in “modern” times. This is particularly true of Anscombe and Foot in the papers that are the occasion for this discussion. They both hold that “modern moral philosophy” and modern morality itself rest on a mistake, one which is more or less opposite to the one Prichard held modern and even ancient moral philosophy to rest on, a mistake on which Prichard's own morality and moral philosophy were based. I hope, however, that I will not be regarded as a male chauvinist if I now try to assess some parts of their line or lines of thought. It is not that I am opposed to the unsubjection of women; I believe firmly that women should be at least as liberated as men should be. It is just that I am not sure ordinary Oughts should be liberated, too. That is what I want to think about here. As Foot puts it, “My present intention is to pursue the matter rather than close down the debate.” I accept the idea that we should consider changes in the way we talk about what is morally good or bad, but I have doubts about changing it in the way she and Anscombe seem to be suggesting. I have always been consciously or unconsciously a mainliner, and wish now to see if I can give a reason for the faith that has been in me.