Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to inquire into certain ethical aspects of Whitehead's philosophy implied in or entailed by basic Whiteheadian doctrines relating to metaphysics, cosmology, and civilization. The topic of this essay thus concerns the same general question of which sort of ethical theory if any might be elaborated and clarified in Whitehead's thinking on which others have written--for example, Belaief, Cobb, Davis, Hall, Jentz, and Pruit. But the emphasis of this study and certain views put forward in it differ from those of other writers. ;Chapter One concerns the value and interest of Whiteheadian ethics particularly as it relates to Whitehead's notion of speculative philosophy. Also the views of other writers are considered briefly, and the approach of this essay to the topic is sketched in relation to some of those views. ;Chapter Two initiates the study proper of the essay through the analysis of the doctrine of actuality as concrescence focuses on a possible moral dimension relevant to concrescence. ;Chapter Three deepens the analysis of a possible moral dimension pertaining to concrescence by considering the concrescence of actualities in relation to Whitehead's metaphysical doctrine of the formative elements. ;Chapter Four draws preliminary conclusions about Whitehead's ethical theory as implied by his metaphysics and particularly his doctrine of the formative elements. ;Chapter Five expands the focus of the essay from the metaphysical context concerning possible moral dimension relevant to actualities to a more cosmological focus on the nature of human beings in Whitehead's thought and on the real potentiality for them to involve a moral dimension in their being. Human personality and identity, the notion of a moral agent, the problem of moral deliberation, and Whitehead's notion of intuition are considered in this chapter. ;Chapter Six attempts to clarify the character of a Whiteheadian ethic in terms of teleology and deontology and in terms of cognitivism and non-cognitivism. Also, aspects of Belaief's, Davis', and Cobb's interpretations are considered, a contrast is made between Hare's account of moral deliberation and justification and that of Whitehead, and a comparison between H. R. Niebuhr's theory of human responsibility with that of Whitehead is suggested.