DOCSLIB.ORG

6 X 10.Long New.P65

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
6 X 10.Long New.P65 Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-51525-2 - Perfecting Virtue: New Essays on Kantian Ethics and Virtue Ethics Edited by Lawrence Jost and Julian Wuerth Index More information Index abstract principles, 11–12, 37 and his perfectionism, 196–97, 204 Achilles, 215–16, 218, 221, 233 hos epi to polu in, 40–41 action guidance, 38, 39, 46, 54–57, 92–93 and the important, 44–45, 49 Agamemnon, 215–16 and Ludwig Wittgenstein, 52–53 agape, 242 Metaphysics, 134 ancient ethics, 116, 169, 191 and the necessary, 44–45, 49 as an ethics of ideals, 82–84 Nicomachean Ethics, 83, 134, 136–38, 167, ancient philosophy, 16–17 196–97 hierarchy in, 90–91 on friendship, 17 Anderson, Elizabeth, 277 and pathê, 218 anger, 215–40 and pleasurable activity, 135–40 moral, 216–17 and pure praxis, 275, 279, 281 vengeful, 215–16 ranking rules in, 44–45, 50 Anglo-American philosophy, 15–17, 242 and rationality, 184 Anglophone philosophy, 58 Rhetoric, 218 animal, 269, 283 and the wicked, 40, 42, 45, 51, 56 anger as, 233 Astyages, 231 in Kant, 153, 180, 181, 186–87, 243 autonomy, see Kant, Immanuel: and Anscombe, Elizabeth, 51, 116, 146, 148 autonomy Anscombe, G.E.M. rational, 91 “Modern Moral Philosophy,” 15 anti-codifiability, 39–50, 92 Baier, Annette, 11 appraisal theory, 219–21 Baron, Marcia, 60, 90, 242–43, 252 Aristotle, 12, 38, 59, 67–68, 71, 75, 90–91, 92, Barth, Karl, 284, 288 113, 116, 133–41, 203–05, 223, 258, 265 Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb, 83, 158, 196 and absolute prohibitions, 39–40 beneficence, 29, 185–87, 241, 243, 245, 252–53, 258 and actualization, 135–36 benevolence, 187, 248–52, 258, 267, 276 and anger, 217–21, 228, 239 as beneficence, 251 and anger responsive to reason, 220–21 as gratitude, 251 and the appetitive, 184 as sympathy, 251 compared to Kant, 81–84, 145–46, 168–71, berserking, 221 175, 184, 194–97 Bible, 233–34, 255–56 and the completion of activity, 133–35, 167 Bijeh, Mohammad, 215 and continence, see virtue: and continence Bosnia and Herzegovina, 220–21 doctrine of the mean, 55–56, 195, 197 Bostock, David, 134 and ethical eudaimonism, 133, 164–71 boulesis, 89 ethics of, 34 Burnyeat, Miles, 140–41 and the fine (or noble), 44–45, 49, 64 generalist v. particularist debate regarding, Caligula, 221 46–53 casuistry and happiness, 143, 196–97 in Kant, 79, 95 302 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-51525-2 - Perfecting Virtue: New Essays on Kantian Ethics and Virtue Ethics Edited by Lawrence Jost and Julian Wuerth Index More information Index 303 categorical imperative, 16, 68, 95, 98, 102, 117, Don Quixote, 140 144, 246, 262 duty, see Kantian ethics: duties in; see also Kant, and autonomy, 156–57 Immanuel: and duties of right, and equivalence of its formulations, 101 duties of virtue, and other-regarding as related to love, 246 duties, and self-regarding duties as related to respect, 246 character, 15, 17, 33 empathy, 267–70 in ethics, 10 and partiality, 267–69 in Kant, 10, 35–36 energeia of activity, 139–41 and dialectical activity, 133–41 Christian ideal, 82, 85, see also Kant, Immanuel: Engstrom, Stephen, 174 and the Christian tradition enkratic, 139 of holiness, 85 Enlightenment, 87, 91, 174 Chrysippus, 225 Epicurean ideal, 82 Cicero, 203, 235 Epicureans, 16–17 Tusculans, 232 Epicurus, 71, 83, 207 classics in philosophy ergon, 135 interpretation, 16 ethical rightness cognition, see Kant, Immanuel: and in Kant’s ethics, 31–32 cognition ethics consequentialism, 200–01, 266, 272, decision procedure in, 16, 38 see utilitarianism and dialectical activity, 141–46 and intuitions, 273 distortion of, 36–37 and moral agency, 281 history of, 15, 17, 33 versus deontology, 20 and intuitions, 262, 270, 272–75 contemporary ethical theory, 54 as theory-driven, 26 diversity of views regarding, 11–14 ethics of care, 9, 14, 267 emphasis on reason in, 13 and empathy, 267–70 failures in, 11–12 ethics of ideals, 82–84, 87–88, 91, 170 feminist critique of, 13–14 eudaimonia, 45, 133, 165–66, 168, 237, and overemphasis on the moral, 12 265, see also Aristotle: and ethical virtue ethicist critique of, 11–13 eudaimonism; Kant, Immanuel: and cosmopolitanism, 14, 239 ethical eudaimonism Crusius, Christian, 83, 207 eupatheiai, 238 cultural relativism, 48 eupraxia, 45 Cumberland, Richard, 83 Exodus, the Book of, 233–34 Cummiskey, David, 264 Cynic ideal (of Diogenes and Antisthenes), 82 feminism, 13–15 Cynics, 239 Finnis, John, 278 Diogenes, 239 flourishing, 12, 31, 66, 94, see also eudaimonia, see also virtue: and flourishing de La Mettrie, Julien Offray, 83 in Aristotle, 167–68, 189 de Montaigne, Michel, 83, 207 in Kant, 164–93 deontology as unattainable, 177–78 and consequentialist opposition, 261–63 Foot, Philippa, 27 and emotion, 266–67 “Utilitarianism and the Virtues,” 276 and empathy, 267–70 forgiveness, 241, 245, see also Kant, Immanuel: and inviolability, 264, 271 on self-love and forgiveness justification of, 261–70 Frankena, William K., 253 meaning of, 20–21, 260–61 free will, 170, 195, 201, 204, 282–83, 284 paradox of, 271–72, 273, 275–76, 278, Freeman, Samuel, 20 279–80, 286–87, 288 Freud, Sigmund, 226 and perspectival immediacy, 267–69 friendship, 11, 14–17, 95, 139, 244, 253, 258, determinism, 284 see also Aristotle: on friendship dialectical activity, 123–46 Fundanus, 221 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-51525-2 - Perfecting Virtue: New Essays on Kantian Ethics and Virtue Ethics Edited by Lawrence Jost and Julian Wuerth Index More information 304 Index Galatians, the Book of, 256 and agent-focused ethics, 67–68 gender and anger, 217–18, 235–40 and inherent difference, 13 and anthrophobia, 250, 257 gendered division of labor, 15 and arbitrium brutum, 153–54 good life and arbitrium purum, 154, 161 in Kant’s ethics, 31 and arbitrium sensitivum, 153–54, 161 gratitude, 245 and Aristotle, see Aristotle: compared to Grisez, Germain, 278 Kant Guyer, Paul, 249 and autonomy, 169, 202, 203, 209–10, 213, 243 Hapagus, 231 “Canon of Pure Reason,” 206 happiness, 18, 66, see also flourishing and the capacity to choose, see Kant, hedonism, 204 Immanuel: and choice Hegel, G. W. F., 12, 35 categorization of, 58–61 Hellenistic philosophical schools, 17, 221 causae impulsivae, 151–52 Hélvetius, Claude-Adrien, 83, 207 and choice, 153–55, 156–57, 159, 177, 195, 208, Herman, Barbara, 249 209, 210, see also Kant, Immanuel: The Practice of Moral Judgment, 35 and arbitrium brutum, and arbitrium Herodotus, 231 purum, and arbitrium sensitivum Hill, Jr., Thomas E.,170 and the Christian tradition, 254, 255 Hobbes, Thomas, 83, 207 and cognition, 149–52, 155, 160, 162, 206 Hoffman, Martin, 267 compared to Aristotle, see Aristotle: Homer compared to Kant The Iliad, 215–16 and the corruption of humans, 77–78, Hume, David, 10, 12, 18, 33, 62, 69, 266–68 87–89, 161–62, 170, 184 A Treatise of Human Nature, 268 co-willed, 110 and contagion, 267 Critique of Judgment, 149, 191 and Humean ethics, 75 Critique of Practical Reason, 33, 59, 112, 149, and natural sentiments, 266 157–58, 174, 191, 282 Hursthouse, Rosalind, 9, 19–20, 21–23, 33–34, Critique of Pure Reason, 149, 159, 191, 284 58, 66, 148, 265–66 Critique of the Power of Judgment, 149, 213 “Normative Virtue Ethics,” 24 and custom, 170 “Virtue Theory and Abortion,”265 and defective reasoning, 112–13 On Virtue Ethics, 18–19, 265 and desire, 149, 154, 155, 157–59, 160, 162 Hutcheson, Francis, 62, 83, 207 and desire and aversion, 151, see also Kant, Immanuel: and desire inclination, see volition: and inclination and his doctrine of duties, see Kantian in Kant and Aristotle, see volition: and ethics: duties in inclination “Doctrine of Virtue,” 95, 182, 211, 240, 242, informed consent, 54 249 integrity, 16 and duties, see Kantian ethics: duties in intuitionism, 68 and duties of right, 178–79, 243 Irwin, T. H., 41–43, 47, 53, 55, 165 and duties of virtue, 178–79, 243 and emotion, 179, 182–84, 225–26, 235–36, James, William, 219 see also Kant, Immanuel: and desire, and the feeling of pleasure and Kagan, Shelly, 266 displeasure, and harmony between Kamm, Frances, 264, 277 reason and emotion Kant, Immanuel and emotion that is moral, 151, 152, 160–61, and accidents, 160–61 183 and his account of ends, 95–96, 171–72, and emotion that is pathological, 151, 152–53, 193 155, 160–61, 183–84 and affects, 73–74, 153, 182, 258 and ethical eudaimonism, 168–71, 190 agent orientation in, 58–61 and an ethics of principles, 88, 170, 174 and agent-based theory, 62–67 and faculties, 148–52, 160–61 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-51525-2 - Perfecting Virtue: New Essays on Kantian Ethics and Virtue Ethics Edited by Lawrence Jost and Julian Wuerth Index More information Index 305 and the faculty of cognition, see Kant, and nature versus freedom, 72–73 Immanuel: and cognition and the noumenal, 147, 160, 176, 177, 210, and the feeling of pleasure and displeasure, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288 149, 151, 157–59, 160, 162 on God, 83, 84–85, 154, 176–77, 188, 200, formula of humanity, 96, 97, 109–11, 179, 202, 206, 207, 212–13 211, 237–38, 242, 263–64, 271–72 on self-love and forgiveness, 254–58 formula of the law of nature, 59 On the Common Saying That May be Correct formula of universal law, 59, 96, 98, 179, in Theory, but It Is of No Use in Practice, 262–63 211 and free will, see free will and other-regarding duties, 185–87, 243 and the good disposition, 60–61 and passions, 153, 182, 236–37 and the good will, 59, 60–61, 78, 84, 190, and the phenomenal, 176, 188,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Jurisprudence, Halakhah, and Moral Particularism
    Volume 64 Issue 5 Article 11 1-30-2020 Jurisprudence, Halakhah, and Moral Particularism Amy J. Sepinwall Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Jurisprudence Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Amy J. Sepinwall, Jurisprudence, Halakhah, and Moral Particularism, 64 Vill. L. Rev. 757 (2020). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol64/iss5/11 This Symposia is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Sepinwall: Jurisprudence, Halakhah, and Moral Particularism 2019] JURISPRUDENCE, HALAKHAH, AND MORAL PARTICULARISM AMY J. SEPINWALL* ALAKHAH is, perhaps maddeningly, about the particular. Examples Habound: Jewish law forbids wearing clothing that mixes wool and linen. Except if one is a kohen (Temple priest), in which case one must wear wool and linen. But only when in the Temple compound; or, accord- ing to a different school, even then only when performing Temple duties.1 Or again: On the Sabbath, a day of rest, one is prohibited from writing by hand. But not by foot or mouth. Old-school Scrabble does not count as writing, but playing on a more modern board with grooves that hold the letters in place does. The contortions and distinctions in these examples find counterparts all over the original codification of the oral tradition and the centuries of commentary that followed. Halakhah is alive, byzan- tine, and seemingly wild.2 Given halakhah’s complexity, one might have thought that it would defy theorization, envisioning it as recalcitrant to the scholar’s aim to disci- pline, unify, generalize.
    [Show full text]
  • Jonathan Dancy: Moral Particularism by Michael Brennen
    Jonathan Dancy: Moral Particularism by Michael Brennen - http://michaelbrennen.com Jonathan Dancy: Moral Particularism by Michael Brennen - Sunday, March 09, 2014 http://michaelbrennen.com/2014/03/09/jonathan-dancy-moral-particularism/ In his SEP article presenting moral particularism, Jonathan Dancy defended particularism against “absolute” and “contributory” moral generalism. Absolute moral generalism claims that a moral principle is “a universal claim to the effect that all actions of a certain type are overall wrong (or right).” On this view of morality, an absolute moral principle might be to not break a promise; thus breaking a promise, whatever the circumstances, is a moral wrong. Contributory moral generalism sees multiple moral principles as contributing to a moral valuation, with the various principles concerned coming to some net balance. On this view, breaking a promise might count against the moral valuation of a particular action, but it might be counterbalanced by other contributory principles. The appeal to principles takes both a metaphysical form and an epistemological form. In the metaphysical form, principles are what couple an action to the property of rightness or wrongness; thus the action of taking a piece of candy from a coworker’s desk is coupled to moral rightness or wrongness by the fact of whether the action is stealing, based on whether the coworker has made the candy available for the taking. In the epistemological form, we need a way to know whether an action is right or wrong, and non-moral features of the action determine its rightness or wrongness; on this view, principles are how a competent moral agent can connect the non-moral aspects of his actions to its moral rightness or wrongness.
    [Show full text]
  • Particularism and Generalism Revisited: Towards a Principled Particularism of Contingency
    PARTICULARISM AND GENERALISM REVISITED: TOWARDS A PRINCIPLED PARTICULARISM OF CONTINGENCY GEORGES THÉRIAULT Thesis submitted to the University of Ottawa in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the M.A. degree in Philosophy Department of Philosophy Faculty of Arts University of Ottawa Unceded Algonquin Territory © Georges Thériault, Ottawa, Canada, 2020 Abstract: This thesis will revisit the debate between moral particularists and moral generalists in the field of meta-ethics. The general aim of this project will be to come to a better understanding of the status and role of moral principles in a reasons-holistic moral landscape. The specific aim will be to develop a viable position within the particularism-generalism debate that will combine elements from both theories. My central argument will be threefold: (a) I will argue that, in a reasons-holistic moral landscape, exceptionless moral principles are not sufficient to ground the possibility of moral thought and judgement; (b) that the possibility of moral thought and judgement depends in part on a determinate set of exceptionless moral principles and an indeterminate set of defeasible moral principles; and (c) that moral principles are insufficient to codify all or most moral truths in finite and manageable terms. My position therefore is a modified version of Principled Particularism. In this thesis, despite defending a version of particularism, I will not shy away from employing generalist terminology or from accepting certain generalist assumptions. Furthermore, unlike some particularists, I will stress the necessity and utility of moral principles. This thesis will also incorporate research about moral thought and judgement from the fields of moral psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Particularism and Scientific Practice
    Moral Particularism and Scientific Practice Brendan Larvor Abstract: Particularism is usually understood as a position in moral philosophy. In fact, it is a view about all reasons, not only moral reasons. Here I show that particularism is a familiar and controversial position in the philosophy of science and mathematics. I then argue for particularism with respect to scientific and mathematical reasoning. This has a bearing on moral particularism, because if particularism about moral reasons is true, then particularism must be true with respect to reasons of any sort, including mathematical and scientific reasons. Keywords: ethics, moral, particularlism, science, mathematics, practice There has lately been a wave of interest in particularism. 1 This discussion has an odd feature: it has almost exclusively concerned moral particularism. This is odd because particularism is a thesis about reasons in general, not just moral reasons. The restriction of the discussion to moral reasons is a contingency. One leading particularist writer, Jonathan Dancy, claims that the debate has focussed on moral reasons because, in non-moral domains, particularism is uncontroversially true.2 The contention of this paper is that particularism is true of scientific and mathematical reasoning, but controversially so. Therefore, defenders of an unrestricted particularism about reasons must make the case for particularism with respect to non- moral reasons, including scientific and mathematical reasons. 3 In this paper, I shall first briefly characterise particularism in moral philosophy. Then, I will show that particularism is a familiar and controversial position in the philosophy of science and mathematics. I will then argue for particularism about 1 scientific and mathematical reasoning.
    [Show full text]
  • Dreams and Formulas: the Roles of Particularism and Principlism in the Law
    DREAMS AND FORMULAS: THE ROLES OF PARTICULARISM AND PRINCIPLISM IN THE LAW R. George Wright* I. INTRODUCTION The term “particularism” is encountered only rarely in the law.1 The basic idea of particularism itself is, however, of great importance in the law. Particularism is, helpfully, much more prominent in contemporary moral philosophy.2 The opposite of particularism, in moral philosophy and in law, is usually taken to be “generalism” or “principlism.”3 For the moment, we may think of particularism in the law as strongly de-emphasizing the roles of principles, rules, standards, policies, and tests.4 More positively, we may think of particularism in * Lawrence A. Jegen Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law—Indianapolis. The author hereby extends his thanks to Rachel Anne Scherer for her continued advice and counsel. 1. For examples, see CASS R. SUNSTEIN, LEGAL REASONING AND POLITICAL CONFLICT 194 (1996) (“General theories do not decide concrete cases, and case-by-case particularism has advantages over the creation and application of broad rules.”); Frederick Schauer, Harry Kalven and the Perils of Particularism, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 397, 398 (1989) (reviewing HARRY KALVEN, JR., A WORTHY TRADITION: FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN AMERICA (1988)) [hereinafter Schauer, Perils of Particularism] (critiquing the common understanding that Harry Kalven was “a particularist, a devotee of the case-specific methods of the common law, an opponent of grand theory, and a scholar who saw the key to free speech adjudication not in large categories but in ‘thinking small’”); and Frederick Schauer, Rules and the Rule of Law, 14 HARV.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Discussion of Jonathan Dancy's Moral Particularism
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by St Andrews Research Repository A critical discussion of Jonathan Dancy’s Moral Particularism by Philipp Schwind Dissertation submitted for the degree of M.Phil. University of St. Andrews School of Philosophical, Anthropological and Film Studies December 2006 Declarations I, Philipp Schwind, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 40,000 words in length, has been written by me, that it is the record of work carried out by me and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. Date . Signature of candidate. I was admitted as a research student in September 2005 and as a candidate for the degree of M.Phil. in September 2005; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St. Andrews between 2005 and 2006. Date . Signature of candidate. I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of M.Phil. in the University of St. Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree. Date . Signature of candidate. In submitting this thesis to the University of St. Andrews I understand that I am giving permission for it to be made available for use in accordance with the regulations of the University Library for the time being in force, subject to any copyright vested in the work not being affected thereby. I also understand that the title and abstract will be published, and that a copy of my work may be made and supplied to any bona fide library or research worker.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Particularism and the Charge of Intuitionism
    Moral particularism and the charge of intuitionism Juliën van Eck Master thesis Philosophy of Political Science Supervisor: Bruno Verbeek “You can't just turn on creativity like a faucet. You have to be in the right mood. - What mood is that? Last-minute panic.” ― Bill Watterson “Am I a good person? Deep down, do I even really want to be a good person, or do I only want to seem like a good person so that people (including myself) will approve of me? Is there a difference? How do I ever actually know whether I'm bullshitting myself, morally speaking?” ― David Foster Wallace Table of contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2 1. Four types of particularism ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Analytic particularism ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.2 Metaphysical particularism ............................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Epistemological particularism ........................................................................................................ 11 1.4 Methodological particularism ......................................................................................................... 13 1.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]