DOCSLIB.ORG

The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1997 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 (1997). 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 ........................................................................................................... 1645 5. Moral Particularism ........................................................................................... 1645 C. What I Think of "Theory".......................................................................................... 1646 D. The Relativity of Morals ............................................................................................ 1649 E. Reconceiving Morality Functionally........................................................................ 1657 R The Moral Sentiments ................................................................................................1662 G. The Problem of Motivation and the Methods of the Moral Entrepreneur........... 1664 H. The Scholarship of Morality ...................................................................................... 1668 1. Functional Analysis ........................................................................................... 1668 2. High Moral Theory ............................................................................................ 1670 3. Reflective Equilibrium ...................................................................................... 1673 4. Moral Casuistry .................................................................................................. 1675 L The Perils of Uniformity ......................................................................................... 1681 J. Professionalism'sCold Grip and the Impotence of Education............................... 1682 K. Moral Change and the Persistenceof Moral Debate - and of Academic Moralism ....................................................................................... 1689 11. THE Lu TS OF MORAL REASONING IN LAv .................................................................. 1693 A. Law and Morality: The Relation Reargued ............................................................. 1693 B. Some Cases ................................................................................................................... 1698 z. The Euthanasia Cases ....................................................................................... 17o0 2. The Abortion Cases ........................................................................................... 1702 3. The Segregation Cases and a Note on Affirmative Action ........................... 1703 4. The Case of the Murdering Heir ...................................................................... 1707 C. Conclusion to Part II ................................................................................................. 1708 APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................................1710 1637 HeinOnline -- 111 Harv. L. Rev. 1637 1997-1998 THE PROBLEMATICS OF MORAL AND LEGAL THEORY Richard A. Posner' In these Holmes Lectures, delivered a century after the publication of Oliver Wendell Holmes's great essay The Path of the Law, Judge Posner argues for an essentially Holmesian conception of the properrelations among modern normative moral philosophy ("academic moralism"), morality, and law. Academic moralism, he argues, lacks either the intellectual cogency or the emotional power to change people's beliefs or behavior; the power to do so resides in "moral entrepreneurs," which academic moralists emphatically are not. Academic moralism's lack of cogency disqualifies it to guide judicial decisionmaking even - in fact, especially - in cases involving controversial moral issues, such as abortion and euthanasia, as the Supreme Court has recognized. I. THE LIMITS OF MORAL THEORIZING A. The Thesis of Part I Summarized M y aim is to criticize moral theory, or, more precisely, a type of moral theory (the subject of Part 1)and then use the criticisms as a lever for challenging the type of legal theory that resembles or draws on moral theory (the subject of Part DI). I have in mind, for example, the constitutional theorizing of Bruce Ackerman, Akhil Amar, Walter Berns, Ronald Dworkin, John Finnis, Robert George, Andrew Kop- pelman, and David Richards, among others, occupying all points of the ideological compass, as well as the nonconstitutional legal theorizing of Jules Coleman, Joel Feinberg, George Fletcher, Charles Fried, Leo Katz, Gregory Keating, Margaret Jane Radin, and Ernest Weinrib, and again many others of diverse political hue. I shall argue that moral theory does not provide a solid basis for moral judgments, let alone for legal ones. I shall intermittently relate this thesis to one of the big and somewhat neglected stories of our time: the rise of pro- fessionalism in a sense illuminated by Max Weber's concepts of ratio- nalization and disenchantment. And I shall indicate how in legal as well as private life we can get along without doing or even thinking about moral theory. * Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Senior Lecturer, Uni- versity of Chicago Law School. This is a revised and expanded version of the Holmes Lectures delivered at the Harvard Law School on October 14 and 15, 1997. For research assistance I thank Sorin Feiner, and for comments on earlier drafts I thank Lucian Bebchuk, Thomas Eisele, Ward Farnsworth, Lawrence Lessig, Robert Nozick, Martha Nussbaum, Eric Posner, Richard Rorty, David Strauss, Cass Sunstein, members of the lecture audiences, and Dennis Thompson and his students in the Program for the Study of Ethics and the Professions at Harvard's Ken- nedy School of Government. 1638 HeinOnline -- 111 Harv. L. Rev. 1638 1997-1998 1998] THE PROBLEMATICS OF MORAL AND LEGAL THEORY 1639 My thesis has a strong form and a weak one. The strong form, again, is that moral theory does not provide a solid basis for moral judgments. The weak form is that even if moral theory can provide a solid basis for some moral judgments, it should not be used as a basis for legal judgments. Moral theory is not something that judges are, or can be, made comfortable with or good at, it is socially divisive, and it does not mesh with the actual issues in cases. I shall focus on the strong form of the thesis in Part I of the Lectures. The distinct ar- guments for the weak form will emerge in Part II, which is much shorter, not only because it builds on Part I, but also because, inde- pendently of the arguments in Part I, the case for the weak form is stronger. The argument in Part I is complex and to some extent coun- terintuitive. It requires careful groundwork, which is the task of this and the next two sections. "Morality," as I shall use the word, is the set of duties to others (not necessarily just other people) that are designed to check our merely self-interested, emotional, or sentimental reactions to serious questions of human conduct. It is about what we owe, rather than what we are owed, except insofar as a sense of entitlement (to happiness, self- fulfillment, an interesting life, the opportunity to exercise our talents, or the opportunity to realize ourselves) might generate a duty on the part of others to help us get what we are entitled to. I do not question the existence or genuineness of morality - I do not argue that it is just a cynical cover for the operation of self-interest - although I do argue that it has less effect on behavior than many moralists believe. Nor do I disparage morality as a subject of inquiry, or question the practicability or importance of normative reasoning. If "moral theory" is used in its broadest possible sense, as a synonym for normative reasoning, you will find no criticism of moral theory as such in these Lectures. As for the frequent use of the word "moral" as an impressive synonym for "political,"' my only criticism is that labeling political arguments "moral" invites confusion. My concern is with the type of moral theory that I call "academic moralism," the type found in the writings
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MORALITY and the AMORAL AGENT by GREGORY WILLIAM
    MORALITY AND THE AMORAL AGENT by GREGORY WILLIAM DURWARD B.Math., University of Waterloo, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF . THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF . DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Philosophy) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1978 © .Gregory; William Durward, I978: In presenting this thesis ih partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Philosophy The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date fyiA^ |\<\V) ABSTRACT The thesis is an exploration of the possibility and rationality of amoral agency. A characterization of the moral agent and his mode of practical deliberation is developed, taking as central the objectivity or impersonal validity of moral judgments and principles, and the concern of morality with the welfare of persons in general. This provides the framework for a discussion of two main forms of amorality. A person may qualify as an amoral agent either because he has little or no concern for other persons' well-being and recognizes no valid claim on him to thus concern himself, or because he operates with a radically subjectivist view of practical reasons and principles of action.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Moral Intelligence in the Schools
    Clarken, Moral Intelligence, p. 1 Moral Intelligence in the Schools Rodney H Clarken School of Education, Northern Michigan University Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Michigan Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, March 20, 2009 Abstract: Moral intelligence is newer and less studied than the more established cognitive, emotional and social intelligences, but has great potential to improve our understanding of learning and behavior. Moral intelligence refers to the ability to apply ethical principles to personal goals, values and actions. The construct of moral intelligence consists of four competencies related to integrity, three to responsibility, two to forgiveness, and one to compassion. Morally intelligent leaders and teacher in schools will be supporting, respecting and caring, and engender those qualities in their students. This paper will explore what moral intelligence looks like and how it can be taught to leaders, teachers and children. Its relationship to character and ethical behavior, as well as the other intelligences will be discussed. By developing greater moral intelligence, benefits to the schools and the society will result in organizations that are more positive, improved relationships and students who are both smart and good and value universal human principles and rights. Intelligence The concept of intelligence generally refers to the ability to think and learn, and has been predominately used to describe the learning and application of skills and facts. Ask twenty friends or twenty experts to define intelligence and you may come up with twenty different definitions, though most will agree that it is a general mental ability to reason, think, understand and remember that draws upon the powers of learning, memory, perception and deciding.
    [Show full text]
  • The Level of Moral Competence Among Sample of Hashemite University Students
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CSCanada.net: E-Journals (Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture,... ISSN 1712-8056[Print] Canadian Social Science ISSN 1923-6697[Online] Vol. 10, No. 1, 2014, pp. 159-164 www.cscanada.net DOI:10.3968/j.css.1923669720141001.4096 www.cscanada.org The Level of Moral Competence Among Sample of Hashemite University Students Ahmad M. Mahasneh[a],* [a]PhD. Tutor. Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Lennick and Kiel (2005) define moral intelligence Education Sciences, Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan. as “the mental capacity to determine how universal *Corresponding author. human principles —like those embodied by the “Golden Received 12 October 2013; accepted 23 January 2014 Rule”— should be applied to our personal values, goals, and actions”. Their construct of moral intelligence Abstract consists of four competencies related to integrity, three to The primary purpose of this study was to determine the responsibility, two to forgiveness and one to compassion. level of students’ about moral competence at Hashemite Moral behavior is the result of at least four component University in Jordan. A total of 909 university students processes: (1) identifying a situation as a moral problem, participated in the study by completing the moral (2) figuring out what one ought to do and evaluating competence questionnaire. Results indicate that university possible plans of action, (3) evaluating how the various students showed medium level of moral competence. courses of action serve moral and no moral values and Additionally, results indicated that there were significant deciding which action will be pursued, and (4) executing differences in participants’ level of moral competence the plan of action (Rest, 1983).
    [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]
  • See No Evil, Speak No Evil? Morality, Evolutionary Psychology, and the Nature of International Relations Brian C
    See No Evil, Speak No Evil? Morality, Evolutionary Psychology, and the Nature of International Relations Brian C. Rathbun and Caleb Pomeroy Abstract A central theme in the study of international relations is that anarchy requires states set aside moral concerns to attain security, rendering IR an autonomous sphere devoid of ethical considerations. Evolutionary and moral psychology, however, suggest that morality emerged to promote human success. It is not despite anarchy but because of anarchy that humans have an ethical sense. Our argument has three empirical implications. First, it is almost impossible to talk about threat and harm without invoking morality. Second, state leaders and the public will use moral judgments as a basis, indeed the most important factor, for assessing international threat, just as research shows they do at the interpersonal level. Third, foreign policy driven by a conception of international relations as an amoral sphere will be quite rare. Word embeddings applied to large political and non-political corpora, a survey experiment in Russia, surveys of the Chinese mass public, and an in-depth analysis of Hitler’s foreign policy thought suggest that individuals both speak evil, condemning aggressive behavior by others, and see evil, screening for threats on the basis of morality. The findings erode notions of IR as an autonomous sphere and upset traditional materialist-ideational dichotomies. A frequent theme in international relations (IR) theory is that foreign affairs is an amoral realm where everyday ethical norms know no place. Under anarchy, ethical considerations must be set aside because morality’s restraints hinder the necessary pursuit of egoistic interests through the use of threats and violence.
    [Show full text]
  • MORAL PARTICULARISM and TRANSDUCTION Gilbert Harman
    Philosophical Issues, 15, Normativity, 2005 MORAL PARTICULARISM AND TRANSDUCTION Gilbert Harman Princeton University Introduction There has been considerable recent discussion of one or another version of ‘‘moral particularism’’ as opposed to ‘‘moral generalism’’ (e.g., Dancy 1993, Sinnott-Armstrong 1999, Hooker and Little 2000, Kihlbom 2002, Va¨yrynen 2004). Moral generalism holds, either that specific moral truths have their source in general moral principles, or that reasonable or justified moral decisions and beliefs are based on the acceptance of general moral principles. Moral particularism rejects moral generalism. There are stronger and weaker versions of moral generalism and corre- spondingly weaker and stronger versions of moral particularism. Strong moral generalism holds, either that all specific moral truths have their source in general moral principles, or that all reasonable or justified moral deci- sions and beliefs are based on the acceptance of general principles. Weak moral generalism holds, either that at least some moral truths have their source in general moral principles, or that at least some reasonable or justified moral decisions and beliefs are based on the acceptance of general moral principles. Since the denial of a strong claim is weak and the denial of a weak claim is strong, strong moral particularism denies weak moral generalism and weak moral particularism denies strong moral generalism. I will be concerned with one of the issues between strong moral general- ism and weak moral particularism. The issues between particularism and generalism are metaphysical, to the extent that they concern the source of moral truths, and epistemic (or psychological), to the extent that they concern the source of reasonable or justified moral decisions and beliefs.
    [Show full text]
  • Relationship Between Moral Intelligence and Psychological Safety Among Emergency and Intensive Care Unit Nurses
    Original Article Health, Spirituality and Medical Ethics. 2020;7(1):2-8 Relationship between Moral Intelligence and Psychological Safety among Emergency and Intensive Care Unit Nurses Received 06 Nov 2019; Accepted 28 Dec 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/jhsme.7.1.2 Gholamhossein Mahmoudirad1 , Hoda Khoshbakht2* , Gholamreza Sharifzadeh3 , Alimohammad Izadpanah1 1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Iran. 2 Student Research Committee, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran. 3 School of Health, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Iran. Abstract Background and Objectives: High moral intelligence in nurses is considered a supportive factor against different pressures and is assumed to promote psychological safety. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between moral intelligence and psychological safety of nurses in emergency and intensive care units. Methods: This descriptive-correlational study was conducted on 255 nurses working in the intensive care unit and emergency department of tertiary hospitals affiliated to Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran. Data collection tools included Lennick and Kiel’s moral intelligence scale and Edmonson’s psychological safety scale. Data were analyzed in SPSS software (version 16) using descriptive statistics and regression. Results: The mean scores of moral intelligence and psychological safety were measured at 73.10±8.13 and 26.91±3.35, respectively. The results of regression analysis indicated that among the dimensions of moral intelligence, compassion (β=0.21) and responsibility (β=0.19) had the power to predict nurses’ psychological safety. In doing so,the predictor variables (i.e., compassion and responsibility) could explain 12% of the variance in the response variable (psychological safety).
    [Show full text]
  • A Defense of a Particularist Research Program*
    A Defense of a Particularist Research Program* Uri D. Leibowitz Abstract: What makes some acts morally right and others morally wrong? Traditionally, philosophers have tried to answer this question by identifying exceptionless moral principles—principles that capture all and only morally right actions. Utilitarianism and Kantianism are paradigmatic examples of such attempts. In recent years, however, there has been a growing interest in a novel approach—Particularism—although its precise content is still a matter of controversy. In this paper I argue that some of the most common objections to particularism result from a misconception of the nature of particularism, and I offer a new formulation of the view. I argue that particularism is best understood as a research program characterized by the core hypothesis that morality can be explained without appeal to exceptionless moral principles, and I explicate some of the advantages of this formulation. Finally, I argue that particularism shows enough promise to warrant further exploration. I. Introduction Particularism is a controversial new movement in moral philosophy. It is not uncommon to hear philosophers say that particularism is a “crazy view” or that it amounts to giving up on moral theorizing. The most prevalent objections to particularism are that particularism is demonstrably false and that particularism is unmotivated.1 I believe that these negative assessments of particularism result from a misconception of the nature of particularism. I hope to show that particularism, properly understood, is a well-motivated project that should not be dismissed out of hand. I will proceed as follows: first, I will outline a recent version of the standard argument against particularism and explain why it is based on a misconception of particularism (section II).
    [Show full text]
  • The Paradox of Morality in Nietzsche
    THE PARADOX OF MORALITY IN NIETZSCHE Yiorgo N. Maniatis University of Athens In this essay I would like to investigate the phenomenon of the paradox that one finds when is dealing with the thought of Nietzsche on morality.' Such a penetrating research into the realm of morality presupposes a tolerant body and mind. because the feeling after the wonder that one feels when is firstly confronted with the paradox of morality. is the greatest disgusf for whatever has been spread and dominated with the name of morality over humanity for the last two thousand years. Of course. the solution of the enigmatic phenomenon of the paradox of morality comes with the known Nietzschean perspective3 of amorality. which comes as liberator from the moral iIIusion and its disgust. and as restorer of the unified healthy naturalness of things. 4 Let us see the problem itself: how does morality present a paradoxical character par excellence in the thought of Nietzsche? What is the paradox. in other words. that Nietzsche finds in morality? The answer is: the paradoxical unified character of good­ evil. their contradiction. the fact that good is also evil, while evil is also good. A being. a thing. a condition, a facto a phenomenon. an action may be good for some people and some particular things and conjunctures. and simultaneously be also evil for some other people and some other conjunctures. This paradox seems at first contradictory and contravening the laws of logic and common sense - which one has learnt from force of habit to believe. to act, and to live dogmatically -.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology, Metaphysics, Ethics and Nihilism. Essay on Nietzsche And
    speaks only indirectly of Sein1, never address- KRITERION ing it directly in its purity. In his introduction Nr. 16 (2002), pp. 3-18 to “Was ist Metaphysik?”, he reviews Descartes’ tree of philosophy to illustrate the indirect rela- tion between metaphysics and Sein [Hei67, p. 195- “Ontology, Metaphysics, Ethics 196]. This tree presents metaphysics as being the and Nihilism. Essay on Nietzsche roots of the tree, physics its trunk and its prin- and Heidegger” cipal branches as being medicine, mechanics, and morals. Heidegger argues that the metaphysical Christine Daigle, Concordia roots of the tree support him but that the tree it- University self does not lie on them but rather on the soil, the soil representing the domain of Sein underlying Abstract: When one undertakes research on Ni- the Seienden. Philosophy thus takes its essence etzsche, a confrontation with Heidegger’s interpreta- and its necessity from Sein and not from Seien- tion of his philosophy is almost unavoidable. Widely den but Sein keeps hidden as the nurrishing soil known, particular and influent, this interpretation is does. nevertheless problematic and its analysis, particularly of its occurence in Holzwege, leads to a questionning Metaphysics is thus a discourse on Seienden. of the generally admitted notions of ontology, meta- But it is a two-branched discourse. In “Was ist physics, ethics, and nihilism. These notions are an in- Metaphysik?”, Heidegger uses Aristotle’s Meta- tegral part of the philosophical vocabulary and never physics, and following it, distinguishes two dis- seem to pose a problem. I am claiming here that, courses of metaphysics: 1- discourse on Seienden although they might seem quite univoqual and clear, as Seienden in general, and 2- discourse on the these terms do pose a problem, at least when one wants Seienden of the divine2 [Hei67, p.
    [Show full text]