Brent Adkins traces the history of ethics and morality by examining six thinkers: Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant, Mill, Nietzsche and Levinas. The book is divided into 3 sections - Ethics, Morality and Beyond. Two thinkers are paired in each section to show you how the important questions of moral philosophy have been answered so that you might better answer them for yourself. You'll learn what the philosophers actually said about how to live the best kind of life and, more (...) importantly, why. (shrink)

We can distinguish two kinds of moral universalization tests for practical principles. One requires that the universal practice of the principle, i.e., universal conformity to it by all agents in a given world, satisfies some condition. The other requires that conformity to the principle by any possible agent, in any situation and at any time, satisfies some condition. We can call these universal practice and universal applicability tests respectively. The logical distinction between these tests is rarely appreciated, and many (...) philosophers systematically confuse them with each other. In practice, UP tests are more frequently used to defend deontological norms, while UA tests are used to defend consequentialist norms. Both conceptual argument and practical examples of their applications will show that UA tests are decisively superior to UP tests for grounding moral norms, casting greater doubt upon deontological theories which rely upon the latter unless they can reformulate their arguments using some version of a UA test. (shrink)

: Kant speaks of our capacity to be “self-determining […] in certain […] laws holding firm a priori”. Here the “laws” refer to the categories of freedom introduced in KpV. The categories of freedom, then, are necessary for self-determination. I first explain how Kant employs the notion of determination in his theoretical philosophy. I then explain how the notion is utilized also in his practical philosophy, particularly in connection to the act of determining the forms of willing that (...) make morality possible. I conclude by answering the question, Why are the categories of freedom necessary for self-determination? Understanding why the categories of freedom are required for self-determination will also help clarify the nature and function of Kant’s categories of freedom, which have puzzled many scholars. (shrink)

Surveys of modern thought usually distinguish between different philosophical positions, for example, “liberalism,” “utilitarianism,” “universalist moral philosophy,” “German Idealism,” “Marxism,” “Critical Theory,” or “communitarianism.” A feminist perspective, however, reveals shared patterns of thinking: certain androcentric conceptions recur regularly, linking otherwise widely disparate philosophical approaches with each other. This article concerns these kinds of patterns. I shall discuss eight concepts that exemplify the masculine features of the philosophical tradition of modernity. At the same time, I aim to show that (...) the feminist critique of the canon does not rely on a unified theory. Although the critics agree largely, if not entirely, on the task of revealing women's exclusion and devaluation, views differ regarding the conclusions to be drawn from this critical reading. While some authors suggest that ideas such as “the individual,” “equality,” or “autonomy” should be discarded entirely, others seek to develop new understandings of these concepts that fully include women. These differences of position are related to the controversies that characterize contemporary philosophy generally, particularly in connection with the objections against universalist conceptions formulated in the context of so‐called “postmodern” thought and communitarianism. Since the feminist critique of the canon as a whole is so diverse, I can discuss only a few examples here. (shrink)

We aim to develop a form of debunking argument according to which an agent’s belief is undermined if the reasons she gives in support of her belief are best explained as rationalizations. This approach is a more sophisticated form of what Shaun Nichols has called best-explanation debunking, which he contrasts with process debunking, i.e., debunking by means of showing that a belief has been generated by an epistemically defective process. In order to develop our approach, we identify an example of (...) such a best-explanation debunking argument in Joshua Greene’s attack on deontology. After showing that this argument is not an instance of process debunking, we offer our best-explanation approach as a generalization of Greene’s argument. Finally, we defend our approach by showing that it is not susceptible to some criticisms that Nichols has leveled against a less sophisticated form of best-explanation debunking. (shrink)

A more complete methodology for normative ethics is needed, and Kierkegaard's philosophy, which emphasizes the individual's role in moral decision-making, can help to meet this need. This essay discusses two ways in which Kierkegaard sought to expand a commonly accepted conception of morality. First, he stressed that the agent changes as part of the process of moral decision-making, with personal experience and insight integral parts of that process. Second, Kierkegaard included within the realm of morality decisions (e.g., (...) about occupation) which are normally viewed as simply matters of personal preference. (shrink)

토마스 아퀴나스의 도덕 교설이 그의 철학 안에서 아리스토텔레스적인 것으로 인식되는 것은 하나의 흔한 일이 되어 왔다. 비록 아리스토텔레스와 토마스 아퀴나스 사이의 세계관 안에서 설명될 수 있는 여러 가지의 차이점들이 있음에도 불구하고, 토마스 아퀴나스의 도덕 교설을 연구하고 있는 학자들은 전형적으로 그것을 대부분 아리스토텔레스적인 것으로 이해하고 있다. 그는 철학사 안에서 처음으로 도덕적 관점으로부터 뿐만 아니라 인간학적 관점으로부터 인간의 정념들을 심사숙고함으로써 그것들을 체계화했다. 그는 그의 정념들에 관한 교설도 역시 우리가‘아리스토텔레스적인’접근이라고 생각하는 것에 속해 있다.BR 좀 더 최근의 연구들은 하나의 다른 접근법을 취하고 있다. 그것들 (...) 중의 몇몇은 일반적인 정념들을 다루고 있다. 다른 것들은 하나의 특수한 정념 또는 정념들의 하나의 특수한 국면에 초점을 맞추고 있다. 그런데 이러한 연구들 이외에 또 다른 하나의 더 커다란 논제라는 더 넓은 체계 안에서의 정념들을 논의하는 논문들이 언급되고 있다.BR 더 넓은 체계 안에서, 토마스 아퀴나스의 도덕철학은 적어도 표면상으로 아리스토텔레스의 목록에 있는 지혜, 용기, 절제, 정의와 동일한 것처럼 보이는 어떤 것들을 표현하고 있는 덕들의 목록을 중심으로 하고 있는 하나의 덕 윤리이다. 많은 학자들에 의해서 토마스 아퀴나스가 받아들였다고 가정하고 있는 아리스토텔레스의 도덕철학과 관련되어 있는 그의 도덕적 덕은 실천을 통하여 획득되어질 뿐만 아니라 이성과 일치하는 것 안에서 의지로 하여금 행위 하고자 하는 쪽으로의 하나의 습성이다. 토마스 아퀴나스의 도덕 교설에 있어서 덕과 이성 사이의 이러한 강력한 관련성이 주어지기 때문에, 정념들은 잘해야 도덕적인 덕의 부속물에 불과하며, 기껏해야 도덕적인 덕의 장애물에 불과하다.BR 이와 관련하여, 본 논문의 목적은 토마스 아퀴나스의 교설을 그의 인류학이라는 더 넓은 체계 안에서 분류함으로써 그의 정념에 관한 교설들의 통찰력들의 풍부함을 이끌어내는 것이다. 그리하여 연구자는 토마스 아퀴나스의 정념에 관한 교설의 아리스토텔레스적인 성격이 어떤 내용을 담고 있는지를 좀 더 자세하게 분석함으로써 하나의 체계적인 설명을 제시하고 있다.BR 첫 번째는 토마스 아퀴나스의 정념과 관련하여 인간에 대한 아리스토텔레스적인 질료-형상론의 관점으로서 육체와 영혼의 복합체에 관한 교설이다. 두 번째는 토마스 아퀴나스의 아리스토텔레스의 우주론적 목적론에 기초한 ‘알려진 대상’과 ‘형상적 대상’으로서의 정념의 대상에 관한 교설이다. 세 번째는 토마스 아퀴나스의 인간 영혼의 정념적 차원과 이성적 차원 사이의 정치적 관계에 관한 교설이다. 네 번째는 토마스 아퀴나스의 하나의 정치적 관계로서 정념들에 대한 이성의 긍정적 영향과 부정적 영향에 관한 교설이다.BR 결론적으로, 토마스 아퀴나스의 정념에 관한 도덕 교설은 아리스토텔레스적인 교설에다가 그의 근본적인 토대를 두고 있다. 그는 아리스토텔레스의 교설들을 가지고서 자신의 정념에 관한 교설을 더 넓은 체계 안에 전개하고 있다. 그리하여 그는 그것들을 좀 더 세밀하고도 명확하게, 그리고 더욱더 풍성하게 체계화하고 있는 것이다. (shrink)

One feature common to a great variety of contemporary ethical theories that differ significantly at other points is the centrality of the dichotomy between egoism and altruism. Morality is considered to be altruistic, and therefore opposed to egoism. This understanding of the relationships among egoism, morality, and altruism stands in contrast to those of the most important ancient and medieval ethical theories. Though Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas disagree with one another elsewhere, they share the belief that (...) there is seldom, if ever, conflict between morality and true self-love. The distinction between virtuous and vicious living is understood, not in terms of a dichotomy between egoism and altruism, but in terms of the distinction between false and true self-love. ;This dissertation focuses on an historical sequence of philosophical mistakes that led to the adoption by most contemporary philosophers of an understanding of the relationship between self-love and morality that was widely held in the pre-modern world, but was understood by the most important ancient and medieval philosophers to be false. The early, British critics of Thomas Hobbes, in their haste to correct his mistakes, made errors of their own that were at least as great. In order to achieve their objective of defending Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Thomism from Hobbism, they should have criticized Hobbes for maintaining that human persons are naturally solitary. They criticized him instead for maintaining that we are naturally selfish--and then argued that it is natural to promote both one's own good and the good of others. In doing so, they drove a wedge between self-love and love of other persons. ;Among the historical consequences of this misdiagnosis is Henry Sidgwick's "dualism of practical reason," which he called "the profoundest problem in ethics." In G. E. Moore's critique of Sidgwick, we find one of the roots of the contemporary belief that the chief opponent of morality is egoism. Among the virtues of the more traditional understanding of egoism, morality, and altruism is that it can, while most modern moral theories cannot, satisfactorily answer the question "Why be ethical?". (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to think the moral law in Francisco Miró Quesada's version: What is its source? What does it orders? And why is it important for ethics? The paper answers this question while contrasting Miró Quesada's position with that of Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant.

The relation between moral philosophy and moral practice is itself philosophically controversial. nor is there any one determinate formula through which to express the relations between the basic principles of morality and of rationality itself. the concepts of the moral and the political are both 'essentially contestable' and so too is the nature of their relations; that is, their analysis is itself of moral and political import. nevertheless, in periods of overall stability, this contestability may (...) hardly be apparent. all this, and its connection with philosophy's fundamental commitment to questioning and self-awareness has a deep significance for moral (and political) education. (shrink)

The novelist is not a theologian or a philosopher, but within the enclosed world of Victorian fiction the matter of theology and the nature of good and evil are examined after the disappearance of God. In the fiction of Dickens, this contention is explored together with the responsibility of the reader as stories are told. While theology may sometimes hamper the reader of fiction, in Victorian novels God may be absent while deeply theological issues remain to be explored and responded (...) to. (shrink)