Under What Net?

Philosophy 48 (186):319 - 326 (1973)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In Morality and Art Mrs Foot characterizes the formalist position about morality as holding ‘that a man can choose for himself, so long as he meets the formal requirements of generality and consistency, what his ultimate moral principles are to be’, and says, quite rightly in my opinion, that it is indefensible, ‘implying as it does that we might recognize as a moral system some entirely pointless set of prohibitions or taboos, or activities such as clapping one's hands, not even thought as harmful, aggressive, treacherous, cowardly by the community in which the prohibitions exist’. Then she adds:A moral system seems necessarily to be one aimed at removing particular dangers and securing certain benefits, and it would follow that some things do and some do not count as objections to a line of conduct from a moral point of view.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,928

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

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-10

Downloads
19 (#799,653)

6 months
2 (#1,198,893)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The Philosopher's Attack on Morality.William K. Frankena - 1974 - Philosophy 49 (190):345 - 356.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Object of Morality.G. J. Warnock - 1971 - Philosophy 47 (180):172-173.
Morality by convention.J. N. Findlay - 1944 - Mind 53 (210):142-169.
Alienation and Self-Realization.Kai Nielsen - 1973 - Philosophy 48 (183):21 - 33.

Add more references