In Ethical Studies, F. H. Bradley provided critiques of utilitarian and Kantian ethics in which he employs both psychological and moral arguments to demonstrate their inadequacies as ethical theories. In this article I want to show that Bradley’s psychological arguments are more effective against utilitarianism than his moral arguments, but that his moral arguments are more effective against Kantianism than his psychological arguments.

_Creative Morality_ is a philosophical study of moral dilemmas. Western moral thought has relied on two basic ethical perspectives - Utilitarianism and Kantianism - to resolve dilemmas. MacNiven argues that no real progress can be made with modern moral problems unless these tradtions are coherently synthesised. The book deals with diverse topics such as academic honesty, medical confidentiality, terrorism and euthanasia and the hypothetical dilemmas used are based on real life situations so that theory might be tested against reality. Yet (...) the solutions are not definitive because, as MacNiven demonstrates, creativity is an intrinsic characteristic of moral thought. (shrink)

Throughout his philosophical writings F.H. Bradley thought that the science of psychology had some relevance for logic and epistemology. This is not a view which contemporary philosophers are very sympathetic to. It is widely held that any attempt to derive conclusions about logic or epistemology from psychological premises is to commit the fallacy of psychologism. It seems obvious that we cannot deduce conclusions about how we ought to think or reason from knowledge of how we actually think or reason. This (...) insight wasn’t always so obvious. Indeed early modern philosophers thought it obvious that we could solve the problem of knowledge by understanding where our ideas came from. Were they innate, as the rationalist thought or acquired, as the empiricists believed? The question of the origin of ideas is surely distinct from questions about validity or truth. The correct answer to origins will not provide solutions to problems in logic or epistemology. The fallacy of psychologism is not that easy to define but its essence appears to be the attempt to reduce logic and epistemology to the psychology of learning. (shrink)

The unusual essays gathered here explore the proposition that as a society we are becoming amoral, our professions no longer have a moral dimension. Wide-ranging, it looks at, for example, the ethics of forestry and planetary engineering.