DOCSLIB.ORG

UNDERSTANDING MORAL PRINCIPLES: JONATHAN DANCY, IRIS MURDOCH, and PARTICULARISM by Hibi Pendleton B.A. in Philosophy, Columbia U

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNDERSTANDING MORAL PRINCIPLES: JONATHAN DANCY, IRIS MURDOCH, and PARTICULARISM by Hibi Pendleton B.A. in Philosophy, Columbia U UNDERSTANDING MORAL PRINCIPLES: JONATHAN DANCY, IRIS MURDOCH, AND PARTICULARISM by Hibi Pendleton B.A. in Philosophy, Columbia University, 1987 M.A. in Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, 1991 J.D. in Law, New York University School of Law, 1994 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2017 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Hibi Pendleton It was defended on October 20, 2017 and approved by John Lyne, Professor, Professor of Communication John McDowell, Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy Jennifer Whiting, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy Dissertation Director: Stephen Engstrom, Professor of Philosophy ii Copyright © by Hibi Pendleton 2017 iii UNDERSTANDING MORAL PRINCIPLES: JONATHAN DANCY, IRIS MURDOCH, AND PARTICULARISM Hibi Pendleton, Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh, 2017 There is a paradox about moral principles like ‘You ought to keep your promises.’ They seem to express universal truths that tell us what to do, but exceptional situations arise in which it seems we should not do what they tell us. Generalists like R. M. Hare resolve this paradox by arguing that accurately specified moral principles do not have exceptions, and we can use them to syllogistically derive correct judgments about actions. Particularists like Jonathan Dancy resolve the paradox by arguing that, because there can be exceptions to any moral principle, moral principles actually are false. At best they are “reminders” or “dispensable crutches.” I argue that although Dancy’s particularism undermines generalism, it fails to capture the true normative status of moral principles. Consequently, there is a lacuna in particularism: it does not provide an adequate understanding of how moral values are related or how moral principles are action-guiding. I trace the failures of particularism, as well as generalism, to an assumption both share about generality—an assumption that tethers them to an unduly narrow conception of moral principles. After rejecting this assumption, I draw on Iris Murdoch’s notion of vision and its perfection to develop an ideal-based account of generality. According to this account, moral thought includes reflection on substantive ideals, the content of which is partly expressed in iv ordinary moral principles. I argue there are two forms of generality moral principles can exhibit, which generalists and particularists alike should embrace. The first is characteristic of fundamental principles like those in Murdoch’s and Aristotle’s views. The second is exhibited in principles that help give content to moral ideals. My account (unlike particularism) allows that principles have a normative, action-guiding role, but (unlike generalism) it does not construe principles as bases for syllogistic derivations about what to do. I discuss examples of both moral exemplars and rehabilitated criminal offenders to demonstrate that principled reflection is crucial to perfecting agency. In doing this, I show how the paradox about moral principles can give way to an understanding of moral principles that captures the role they play in ordinary moral reflection. v TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 GENERALISM AND DANCY’S CRITIQUE .......................................................... 9 1.1 SUBSUMPTIVE GENERALISM ................................................................... 11 1.2 PRESUMPTIVE GENERALISM .................................................................... 14 1.3 DANCY’S ACCOUNT OF GENERALISM ................................................... 17 1.4 DANCY’S CRITIQUE OF GENERALISM ................................................... 20 1.4.1 Dancy’s argument against subsumptivism ............................................... 20 1.4.2 Dancy’s argument against presumptivism ............................................... 24 1.4.3 Insights in particularism and generalism ................................................. 28 1.5 A COMMON ASSUMPTION .......................................................................... 29 2.0 DANCY’S PARTICULARISM AND A CRITIQUE .............................................. 31 2.1 DANCY’S REMINDERS AND SHAPE .......................................................... 32 2.2 A CRITIQUE OF REMINDERS ..................................................................... 34 2.3 AN ANALYSIS OF THE RATIONALITY OF REGRET ............................ 45 2.4 GENERALITY IN MORAL REASONING ................................................... 62 3.0 MURDOCH, DANCY, AND VISION ...................................................................... 64 3.1 VISION: AN EXAMPLE ................................................................................. 65 3.2 VISION: AN ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 68 vi 3.2.1 Vision and perception ................................................................................. 68 3.2.2 Attention and reflection .............................................................................. 70 3.2.3 Change in perception without change in total vision ............................... 76 3.2.4 Change in perception with three types of change in total vision ............ 77 3.2.4.1 Temporary change in total vision ...................................................... 77 3.2.4.2 Improperly motivated change in total vision .................................... 78 3.2.4.3 Properly motivated change in total vision ........................................ 79 3.3 DANCY AND MURDOCH: A CONTRAST ................................................. 80 3.4 DANCY’S PARTICULARISM: A LACUNA ................................................ 91 3.5 BEYOND MURDOCH: IDEALS IN VISION ............................................. 101 4.0 THE IDEAL-BASED ACCOUNT OF GENERALITY ....................................... 104 4.1 MORAL REFLECTION AND EXAMPLES ................................................ 106 4.2 AN EXAMPLE ................................................................................................. 107 4.3 MORAL REFLECTION AND IDEALS ....................................................... 107 4.4 PRINCIPLES AND IDEAL-BASED REASONING .................................... 116 4.4.1 Ideals, principles, and subsumptivism .................................................... 120 4.4.2 Ideals, principles, and presumptivism .................................................... 125 4.4.3 Defectiveness and imperfection ............................................................... 128 4.4.4 Inadequacies in subsumptivism and presumptivism ............................. 129 4.5 TWO DISTINCTIONS ................................................................................... 129 4.5.1 Absolute subsumptivism and contextual subsumptivism ...................... 130 4.5.2 Invariable propositions and unvarying propositions............................. 132 4.6 QUESTIONS FOR THE IDEAL-BASED ACCOUNT................................ 137 vii 4.6.1 Is there a highest or ultimate principle or ideal? ................................... 138 4.6.2 Where do ideals come from? .................................................................... 138 4.6.3 How are ideals related to each other? ..................................................... 139 4.6.4 How are ideals related to principles? ...................................................... 140 4.6.5 Are principles hypothetical imperatives? ............................................... 141 4.6.6 Is it possible to violate a principle or an ideal? ...................................... 142 4.6.7 Is the ideal-based account unrealistic? ................................................... 149 4.7 THE CHARGE OF IGNORATIO ELENCHI ............................................... 158 4.7.1 The common assumption elaborated ...................................................... 159 4.7.2 A response to the charge of ignoratio elenchi ......................................... 164 4.7.3 Insights in particularism, generalism, and the ideal-based account .... 165 4.8 THE CHARGE THAT PRINCIPLES CANNOT GUIDE ACTION ......... 169 4.8.1 Conditioning the system and the mechanism of choice ......................... 169 4.8.2 A response to the charge that principles cannot guide action .............. 173 4.8.2.1 The action-guiding role of principles in H’s reflection .................. 174 4.8.2.2 Three action-guiding roles for principles in reflection .................. 176 4.9 FILLING THE LACUNA: FROM PRINCIPLES TO CHARACTER..... 183 4.10 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS OF GENERALITY ............................. 190 4.10.1 Aristotelian generality .............................................................................. 196 4.10.2 Ideal-based generality ............................................................................... 201 4.11 CONCLUSION: RECONCILING PARTICULARISM, GENERALISM, AND THE IDEAL-BASED ACCOUNT OF GENERALITY ...................................... 208 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 211 viii PREFACE There are so many people whose help and encouragement have sustained me in my life and in the writing of this dissertation. I am immensely grateful to my committee
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Defense of Self-Determination
    In Defense of Self-Determination Daniel Philpott Ethics, Vol. 105, No. 2. (Jan., 1995), pp. 352-385. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-1704%28199501%29105%3A2%3C352%3AIDOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B Ethics is currently published by The University of Chicago Press. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Fri Mar 28 02:06:01 2008 In Defense of Self-Determination* Daniel Philpott INTRODUCTION Thinking back upon the fracas over self-determination at the 1919 Conference at Versailles, former Secretary of State Robert Lansing re- corded that the concept was "loaded with dynamite.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Disobedience
    Civil Disobedience Henry David Toreau Civil Disobedience Henry David Toreau Foreword by Connor Boyack Libertas Institute Salt Lake City, Utah Civil Disobedience Thoreau’s essay is out of copyright and in the public domain; this version is lightly edited for modernization. Supplemental essays are copyrighted by their respective authors and included with permission. The foreword is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. LIBERTAS PRESS 770 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 255 LEHI, UT 84043 Civil Disobedience / Henry David Toreau — 1st ed. First printing, June 2014 Cover Design by Ben Jenkins Manufactured in the United States of America For bulk orders, send inquiries to: [email protected] ISBN-13: 978-0-9892912-3-1 dedicated to Edward Snowden for doing what was right “Te most foolish notion of all is the belief that everything is just which is found in the customs or laws of nations. Would that be true, even if these laws had been enacted by tyrants?” “What of the many deadly, the many pestilential statutes which nations put in force? Tese no more deserve to be called laws than the rules a band of robbers might pass in their assembly. For if ignorant and unskillful men have prescribed deadly poisons instead of healing drugs, these cannot possibly be called physicians’ prescriptions; neither in a nation can a statute of any sort be called a law, even though the nation, in spite of being a ruinous regulation, has accepted it.” —Cicero Foreword by Connor Boyack Americans know Henry David Thoreau as the author of Walden, a narrative published in 1854 detailing the author’s life at Walden Pond, on property owned by his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson near Concord, Massachusetts.
    [Show full text]
  • Method: Journal of Lonergan Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1
    VOLUME16 ER 1 SPRING19 METHOD lournalof LonerganStudies VolumeL6 NumberLSPring199S PATRICK H. BYRNE CHARLESC. HEFLINC, JR. MARK D. MORELU Editor Eilitor Editor KERRYCRoNIN ANNE E. C/DONNELL Business Manager Editoial Manager CONTENTS Fredeick E. Crcnoe. 1 Editor's lntroduction BernardI . F. Lonergan 5 "Variations in Fundamental Theology" LouisRoy, O.P. 25 Schleiermacher'sEpistemology IamesSwindal 47 The Role of Cognitive Reflection in Bernard Lonergan's Moral TheologY 67 BooK REvIEws METHzD:lournal of LonerganStudies is published by The Lonergan Institute at Boston College METHoD: lournal of Lonergan Studies aims, first, at furthering interpretive, historical, and critical study of the philosophicaf theological, economic, and methodological writings of Bernard l,onergan. Secondly, it aims at promoting original research into the methodological foundations of the sciencesand disciplines. METHoD is published twice yearly, in April and October, by The Lonergan Institute at Boston College. SuBscRtPrtoNPRICE 1998: $16.00 yearly for individuals, $28.00yearly for institutions (U.S. currency). SUBSCRIPTIoNORDERS must be prepaid in U.S. funds and should be addressed to the Business Manager, Meruoo, Lonergan Center, Bapst Library, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02767-3806. Changes of address and other correspondence related to subscriptions and advertising should be sent to the same address. MANUScRIPTSshould be sent to Mark Morelli METHoD, Deparhent of Philosophy, Loyola Marymount University, Loyola Blvd. at W. 80th Street, Los Angeles, CA 9fiX5 or to Kerry Cronin, METHoD,Lonergan Center, Bapst Library, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02167-3806.In order to facilitate an early decisioru authors should send three copies of each manurript, double-spaced throughou! including footnotes. Submissions should be accompanied by a short biographical note.
    [Show full text]
  • Rossian Moral Pluralism: a (Partial) Defense
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Philosophy Theses Department of Philosophy 6-9-2006 Rossian Moral Pluralism: A (Partial) Defense Angela J. Desaulniers Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Desaulniers, Angela J., "Rossian Moral Pluralism: A (Partial) Defense." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2006. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/5 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Philosophy at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ROSSIAN MORAL PLURALISM: A (PARTIAL) DEFENSE by ANGELA J DESAULNIERS Under the Direction of Andrew Altman ABSTRACT Rossian moral pluralism’s rejection of a founding moral principle and use of ‘prima facie duties’ as opposed to absolute duties makes it unique from most other major ethical theories. It has been attacked in a myriad of different ways because of this. Brad Hooker has proposed two objections based on these ideas. The first is that moral pluralism is lacking justification because of its rejection of a founding moral principle. The second is that because of this, and its lack of absolute duties, moral pluralism is an indeterminate theory. In this paper I will look at Hooker’s objections as well as two responses that have been proposed as solutions. Having shown these solutions to be insufficient I will then propose a way to look at Ross’ moral pluralism that saves it from Hooker’s objections and clearly lays out Ross’ understanding of how we should deliberate about moral matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Failings of Strong Moral Particularism
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor Essays of Significance & Critical Reflections Critical Reflections 2015 Mar 28th, 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM Failings of Strong Moral Particularism Timothy Grainger Mr Carleton University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/essaysofsignificance Part of the Philosophy Commons Grainger, Timothy Mr, "Failings of Strong Moral Particularism" (2015). Critical Reflections. 3. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/essaysofsignificance/2014/eos2014/3 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in Critical Reflections by an authorized administrator of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 The Failings of Strong Particularism Timothy Grainger Jonathan Dancy has without a doubt raised important meta-ethical issues with traditional principle based ethical system, but he has also over stepped and taken up a position that he cannot defend. On one hand Dancy creates a strong argument for the need of context to play a role in ethical decision making and on the other hand he argues against the ability for principles to have any justified role in moral decision making. This paper will discuss the issues facing Dancy’s extreme rejection of principle, be it his utter rejection of moral principle or simply his rejection that any moral principle can ever be justified, and argue that such a stance is both unproductive and incoherent. Before attempting to dismantle Dancy’s position it is important to see why he should not be discounted altogether. Dancy’s particularism is motivated through two distinct paths; the idea that there is need for contextual sensitivity in ethical matters, and a belief that reasons are always holistic in nature.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Supreme Principle of Morality'? in the Preface to His Best
    The Supreme Principle of Morality Allen W. Wood 1. What is ‘The Supreme Principle of Morality’? In the Preface to his best known work on moral philosophy, Kant states his purpose very clearly and succinctly: “The present groundwork is, however, nothing more than the search for and establishment of the supreme principle of morality, which already constitutes an enterprise whole in its aim and to be separated from every other moral investigation” (Groundwork 4:392). This paper will deal with the outcome of the first part of this task, namely, Kant’s attempt to formulate the supreme principle of morality, which is the intended outcome of the search. It will consider this formulation in light of Kant’s conception of the historical antecedents of his attempt. Our first task, however, must be to say a little about the meaning of the term ‘supreme principle of morality’. For it is not nearly as evident to many as it was to Kant that there is such a thing at all. And it is extremely common for people, whatever position they may take on this issue, to misunderstand what a ‘supreme principle of morality’ is, what it is for, and what role it is supposed to play in moral theorizing and moral reasoning. Kant never directly presents any argument that there must be such a principle, but he does articulate several considerations that would seem to justify supposing that there is. Kant holds that moral questions are to be decided by reason. Reason, according to Kant, always seeks unity under principles, and ultimately, systematic unity under the fewest possible number of principles (Pure Reason A298-302/B355-359, A645- 650/B673-678).
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 17, No. 2
    Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy Volume XVII · Number 2 April 2020 Articles 103 Social Reform in a Complex World Jacob Barrett 133 Freedom and Actual Interference Jonah Goldwater 159 Do We Have Reasons to Obey the Law? Edmund Tweedy Flanigan 198 The Ambitions of Consequentialism Brian McElwee Discussions 219 Error Theory, Unbelievability, and the Normative Objection Daniele Bruno 228 Does Initial Appropriation Create New Obligations? Jesse Spafford Journal of Ethics Social Philosophy http://www.jesp.org & TheJournal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (issn 1559-3061) is a peer-reviewed online journal in moral, social, political, and legal philosophy. The journal is founded on the principle of publisher-funded open access. There are no publication fees for authors, and public access to articles is free of charge and is available to all readers under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 license. Funding for the journal has been made possible through the generous commitment of the Gould School of Law and the Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences at the University of Southern California. TheJournal of Ethics and Social Philosophy aspires to be the leading venue for the best new work in the fields that it covers, and it is governed by a correspondingly high editorial standard. The journal welcomes submissions of articles in any of these and related fields of research. The journal is interested in work in the history of ethics that bears directly on topics of contemporary interest, but does not consider articles of purely historical interest. It is the view of the associate editors that the journal’s high standard does not preclude publishing work that is critical in nature, provided that it is constructive, well- argued, current, and of sufficiently general interest.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Fulfillment of Moral Obligation
    ON THE FULFILLMENT OF MORAL OBLIGATION Michael J. Zimmerman Department of Philosophy, University of North Carolina at Greensboro [email protected] ABSTRACT: This paper considers three general views about the nature of moral obligation and three particular answers (with which these views are typically associated) concerning the following question: if on Monday you lend me a book that I promise to return to you by Friday, what precisely is my obligation to you and what constitutes its fulfillment? The example is borrowed from W.D. Ross, who in The Right and the Good proposed what he called the Objective View of obligation, from which he inferred what is here called the First Answer to the question. In Foundations of Ethics Ross repudiated the Objective View in favor of the Subjective View, from which he inferred a Second Answer. In this paper the Objective and Subjective Views and the First and Second Answers are each rejected in favor of the Prospective View and a Third Answer. The implications of the Prospective View for another question closely related to the original question are then investigated: what precisely is your right regarding my returning the book and what constitutes its satisfaction? 1 PrintedPrinted from: from: HommageHomage Hommage à àWlodek. àWlodek. Wlodek. Philosophical Philosophical Philosophical Papers Pape Papers Dedicatedrs Dedicated Dedicated to to Wlodek to Wlodek Wlodek Rabinowicz. Rabinowicz. Rabinowicz. Eds. Eds. Ed. T. T. Rønnow-Rasmussen, Rønnow-Rasmussen, B. B. Petersson, Petersson, J.J. J.Josefsson Josefsson
    [Show full text]
  • Proportionality As a Constitutional Doctrine Author(S): Dimitrios Kyritsis Source: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , Summer 2014, Vol
    Whatever Works: Proportionality as a Constitutional Doctrine Author(s): Dimitrios Kyritsis Source: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , Summer 2014, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Summer 2014), pp. 395-415 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/24562824 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oxford Journal of Legal Studies This content downloaded from 152.3.102.254 on Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:35:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (2014), pp. 395-415 doi:10.1093/ojls/gqt033 Published Advance Access January 13, 2014 Whatever Works: Proportionality as a Constitutional Doctrine* Dimitrios Kyritsis ie* Abstract—In The Global Model of Constitutional Rights Kai Möller claims that the proportionality test is underlain by an expansive moral right to autonomy. This putative right protects everything that advances one's self-conception. It may of course be limited when balanced against other considerations such as the rights of others. But it always creates a duty on the state to justify the limitation.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasons and Moral Principles
    This is a repository copy of Reasons and Moral Principles. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/76787/ Version: Accepted Version Book Section: Väyrynen, P orcid.org/0000-0003-4066-8577 (2018) Reasons and Moral Principles. In: Star, D, (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. Oxford Handbooks . Oxford University Press , Oxford, UK , pp. 839-864. ISBN 9780199657889 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199657889.013.37 © 2018, the several contributors. This material was originally published in The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity, edited by Star, D., and has been reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199657889.013.37. For permission to reuse this material, please visit http://global.oup.com/academic/rights. Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reasons and Moral Principles∗ Pekka V¨ayrynen University of Leeds 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1998 The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory Richard A. Posner Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Posner, "The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory," 111 Harvard Law Review 1637 (1998). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 111 MAY 1998 NUMBER 7 1HARVARD LAW REVIEW1 '997 OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES LECTURES THE PROBLEMATICS OF MORAL AND LEGAL THEORY Richard A. Posner TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE Lminrs OF MORAL THEORIZING ........................................................................... 638 A. The Thesis of PartI Summarized............................................................................. 638 B. My Moral Stance ......................................................................................................... 1642 x. Moral Relativism ................................................................................................ 1642 2. Moral Subjectivism ............................................................................................ 1643 3. Moral Skepticism ............................................................................................... 1643 4. Emotivism ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dónal P. O'mathúna · Vilius Dranseika Bert Gordijn Editors
    Advancing Global Bioethics 11 Dónal P. O’Mathúna · Vilius Dranseika Bert Gordijn Editors Disasters: Core Concepts and Ethical Theories Advancing Global Bioethics Volume 11 Series editors Henk A.M.J. ten Have Duquesne University Pittsburgh, USA Bert Gordijn Institute of Ethics Dublin City University Dublin, Ireland The book series Global Bioethics provides a forum for normative analysis of a vast range of important new issues in bioethics from a truly global perspective and with a cross-cultural approach. The issues covered by the series include among other things sponsorship of research and education, scientific misconduct and research integrity, exploitation of research participants in resource-poor settings, brain drain and migration of healthcare workers, organ trafficking and transplant tourism, indigenous medicine, biodiversity, commodification of human tissue, benefit sharing, bio-industry and food, malnutrition and hunger, human rights, and climate change. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10420 Dónal P. O’Mathúna • Vilius Dranseika Bert Gordijn Editors Disasters: Core Concepts and Ethical Theories Editors Dónal P. O’Mathúna Vilius Dranseika School of Nursing and Human Sciences Vilnius University Dublin City University Vilnius, Lithuania Dublin, Ireland College of Nursing The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio, USA Bert Gordijn Institute of Ethics Dublin City University Dublin, Ireland This publication is based upon work from COST Action IS1201, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a funding agency for research and innovation networks - www.cost.eu. Our Actions help connect research initiatives across Europe and enable scientists to grow their ideas by sharing them with their peers.
    [Show full text]