DOCSLIB.ORG

PHIL 202: Core Ethics; Winter 2013 Core Sequence in the History of Ethics, 2011-2013 IV: 19Th and 20Th Century Moral Philosophy David O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PHIL 202: Core Ethics; Winter 2013 Core Sequence in the History of Ethics, 2011-2013 IV: 19Th and 20Th Century Moral Philosophy David O Draft of 3-11-13 PHIL 202: Core Ethics; Winter 2013 Core Sequence in the History of Ethics, 2011-2013 IV: 19th and 20th Century MorAl Philosophy David O. Brink HAndout #12: Elizabeth Anscombe on Modern MorAl Philosophy If the emotivists represent one kind of critical reaction to the British school, Elizabeth Anscombe (1919-2001) represents a very different kind of critical reaction. In fact, she lumps noncognitivists, such as R.M. Hare and Patrick Nowell-Smith, together with the rational intuitionists of the British school. She combines several distinct concerns about this larger tradition. 1. She is critical of the British school’s focus on duty and obligation. 2. She thinks that the school has a consequentialist conception of duty that is wrong- headed. 3. She thinks that an ethics of obligation only makes sense in a theological world-view committed to divine commands, with the result that the focus on duty and obligation no longer makes sense in a secular age. 4. She advocates a turn from duty and obligation to a eudaimonistic ethics that gives a central role to human flourishing and virtue. 5. Perhaps less clearly, she is critical of the school for its relentless abstraction, its willingness to prescind from substantive moral commitments. I make no attempt here to discuss or assess Anscombe’s larger contributions to philosophy or even moral philosophy, which would need to focus on her discussion of intentional action in Intention (1957) and her discussion of Catholic moral doctrines, such as the doctrine of double effect (discussed, for instance, in “War and Murder” and “Mr. Truman’s Degree”). Instead, I will focus on her provocative and influential discussion in “Modern Moral Philosophy” (1958). It can be surprising how influential this article has been, given its impatient, uncharitable, and contemptuous attitude toward the history of ethics and the British school. Though written in a style not be imitated, it raises some issues worth our attention. MODERN MORAL PHILOSOPHY At the outset of the paper, Anscombe lists three main theses that she will defend (26). 1. It is not profitable to do moral philosophy without an adequate moral psychology, which we currently lack (but apparently is not unattainable). 2. The concepts of duty and obligation are relics of a theological world-view that is no longer accepted and so should be discarded. 3. The differences among members of the British school are less important than what unites them, and its common commitments, especially to duty and consequentialism, should be rejected. 2 These three theses are connected. In some ways, (2) appears to be philosophically basic. She argues that the focus on duty and obligation no longer makes sense in a secular world- view, which explains at least one of the primary mistakes of the British school and, hence, (3). This attack on duty and obligation is supposed to recommend a refocusing on human flourishing and virtue. However, this recommendation carries with it some skepticism, inasmuch as she seems to think that reconstructing a eudaimonist form of virtue ethics requires an adequate moral psychology, which she seems to think has not yet been developed. THE CRITIQUE OF DUTY AND OBLIGATION The outlines of Anscombe’s attack on duty and obligation are reasonably clear (27, 30-31). She thinks that an ethics of obligation only makes sense in a theological world- view committed to divine commands, with the result that the focus on duty and obligation no longer makes sense in a secular age. The argument seems to have roughly this kind of structure. 1. Duty or obligation only makes sense as the product of a moral law. 2. Law implies legislation. 3. Legislation implies the existence of a superior law-giver. 4. Hence, duty or obligation only makes sense on a divine command theory of ethics. 5. Hence, duty or obligation makes no sense in a secular age. There are several potential problems with this argument. It’s hard to know how to assess (1) without knowing more about what is built into the idea of a moral law, some of which emerges later in the argument. On a minimal reading, which will make later premises more substantial claims, (1) says only that moral duty or obligation is the result of moral generalizations, or rules, or principles. Even this claim might not be completely trivial, as it does seem to rule out certain forms of moral particularism, which would deny the existence or importance of general moral claims. But all members of the British school appear to be moral generalists in this sense, even Prichard who seemed closest to particularism. But, understood in this minimal way, (1) is reasonably ecumenical. But if the moral law referred to in (1) requires no more than moral rule, principle, or generalization, then (2) looks quite problematic. Why should moral principles presuppose legislation? Indeed, this would seem to imply a conventionalist view of morality that most, especially the rational intuitionists, should want to reject. Even if we wanted to invest the idea of moral law with more nomic significance, it’s unclear why we shouldn’t treat moral laws as natural laws, which are not conventional and do not require a law-maker. (2) itself seems to imply the existence of law-makers, without which legislation would apparently be impossible. But (3) introduces the further idea that a law-maker must be superior to those obligated by the laws. And this might seem to rule out self-legislation, which Anscombe associates with Kant and treats as absurd (27). But the possibility of democratic legal systems should already suggest that legislation is possible without political superiors in systems involving collective self-legislation. One form of mutual self- legislation that we are familiar with is the idea of contract. Anscombe suggests that this is an interesting but underdeveloped alternative (37-38). But the idea of morality as a 3 contract for mutual advantage has a long history, beginning in Plato’s discussion in Republic II and running through Epicurus and Hobbes. (4) is supposed to follow from what went before, and we have seen reasons one might want to resist each previous stage in the argument. But (4) is also ambiguous depending on how we understand the divine command theory. On one reading, divine command theory asserts only the biconditional relationship between divine command and duty. X is one’s duty iff God does or would approve of x. But we know from Plato’s Euthyphro that this biconditional claim is ambiguous between voluntarist and naturalist readings. Voluntarism: X is one’s duty because God does or would approve of it. Naturalism: God does or would approve of X because it is one’s duty, and God is or would be omniscient and morally perfect. Only if (4) is understood as voluntarism will (5) follow from (4), but it’s not clear that (4) follows from the previous claims if (4) is understood as voluntarism. More generally, we could admit that moral duty or obligation implies the truth of naturalism. But if we are naturalists, we do not think that moral facts depend upon God’s will metaphysically or constitutively. So secularism would not rob duty and obligation of a metaphysical foundation. There is something slightly odd about Anscombe’s attempt to show that duty makes no sense in a secular age and that we should consequently turn our attention away from duty toward an ethics of flourishing and virtue inasmuch as Anscombe herself is an orthodox Catholic, who treats many moral doctrines of the Catholic church, such as the doctrine of double effect, as sacred moral commitments. One would more readily have expected the criticism of duty and obligation to come from someone who embraced a secular world-view. This is not Anscombe. I suppose she can think that secularists are wrong to embrace an ethics of duty and obligation, even if she would be entitled to do so. On this reading, her complaint about the ethics of duty is ad hominem: it makes no sense for secularists. Of course, our analysis of her argument suggests that she has not succeeded in giving secularists reason to abandon duty and obligation. THE CRITIQUE OF CONSEQUENTIALISM Anscombe’s metaethical critique of an ethics of duty and obligation sits uneasily with her substantive criticism of the consequentialist conception of duty that she finds in the British school. Broadly speaking, she criticizes the British school for having an insufficiently categorical conception of duties not to harm the innocent (34). This is a somewhat surprising criticism from someone who thinks an ethics of duty should be abandoned. Anscombe introduces the term consequentialism (36) and treats the British school as monolithically consequentialist. This is a plausible reading of Sidgwick and Moore, but a very surprising reading of Ross and Prichard. 4 She correctly notes that Sidgwick elides the distinction between intended and foreseen consequences (34-35; cf. ME 202), which will seem a big mistake to anyone who accepts the doctrine of double effect, as she does, claiming that it is morally worse to intend harm than merely to foresee it. But it’s not clear why this elision should be a part of any consequentialist doctrine (36), certainly it’s not clear why a form of ideal consequentialism could not embrace the doctrine of double effect. It’s surprising that she should think that the British school should be committed to consequentialism as such. Ross would seem to be a clear counterexample. Anscombe’s reason for treating Ross as a consequentialist is that he allows that there might be some sufficiently great good to secure or harm to avoid that would justify breaking deontological prohibitions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Justice as Fairness Modified: A Contractarian Coherentist Response to MacIntyre Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15w7x72f Author Gillis, Robert Charles Publication Date 2017 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Justice as Fairness Modified: A Contractarian Coherentist Response to MacIntyre A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy by Robert Charles Gillis Committee in charge: Professor Georgios Anagnostopoulos, Chair Professor David Brink Professor Harvey Goldman Professor Gary Jacobson Professor S. Nicholas Jolley 2018 The Dissertation of Robert Charles Gillis is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2018 iii DEDICATION I dedicate this to the memory of my parents, Herbert and Paula Gillis, and my Uncle, Charles Englund. Their hard work made it possible for me to study philosophy. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page …………………………………………………………………………......... iii Dedication …………………………………………………………………………………… iv Table of Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Anscombe, Foot, and Contemporary Virtue Ethics
    J Value Inquiry (2010) 44:209–224 DOI 10.1007/s10790-010-9218-0 Virtue Ethics without Right Action: Anscombe, Foot, and Contemporary Virtue Ethics John Hacker-Wright Published online: 5 March 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 1 Introduction Working out a criterion of morally right action is central to developing virtue ethics.1 Most advocates of virtue ethics believe that achieving such a criterion is crucial to vindicating virtue ethics as a normative theory. Yet the centrality of this task marks a departure from the views of at least some of the philosophers credited with the revival of virtue ethics in the twentieth century, especially from the views of G.E.M. Anscombe and Philippa Foot. Anscombe especially has sharp criticisms of the way philosophers handle the concept of morally right action along with related concepts like moral obligation. Yet the work of contemporary virtue ethicists such as Rosalind Hursthouse, Michael Slote, and Christine Swanton features little discussion of Anscombe’s criticisms or the reasons that the other virtue revivalists avoided providing a criterion of moral rightness. The dominant assumption appears to be that the earlier virtue revivalists neglect establishing a criterion of morally right action because their concern is to give priority to the evaluation of an agent over his acts as a corrective to the exclusive attention given to act-evaluation in the moral philosophy of the time. For Anscombe and Foot, at least, the concern to give priority to agent-evaluation is not among their motives for advocating a return to virtues.2 Instead, they believe that moral philosophers from the modern period forward have given the terms ‘‘right’’ and ‘‘ought’’ an artificial and incoherent sense.
    [Show full text]
  • Anscombe Reading Aristotle*
    Enrahonar. An International Journal of Theoretical and Practical Reason 64, 2020 63-79 Anscombe reading Aristotle* Susana Cadilha Universidade Nova de Lisboa – IFILNOVA [email protected] Reception date: 4-11-2019 Acceptance date: 2-12-2019 Abstract Under one particular reading of it, Anscombe’s ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ is considered a seminal text in the revival of virtue ethics. Seen thus, Anscombe is implying that it is possible to do ethics without using concepts such as ‘moral ought’ or ‘moral obligation’, the perfect example being Aristotelian ethics. On the other hand, Anscombe claims that it is not useful at present to engage in moral philosophy since she finds that ‘philosophically there is a huge gap… which needs to be filled by an account of human nature, human action, …and above all of human “flourishing”’ (Anscombe, 1958: 18). The gap Anscombe refers to appears where there should be a ‘proof that an unjust man is a bad man’. My aim in this paper is to discuss the various ways in which Anscombe’s theses can be interpreted, recalling two other philosophers for whom Aristotelian virtue ethics was also essential: P. Foot and J. McDowell. I will argue that Anscombe did not expect Aristotelian ethics to answer the problems modern ethics poses. Keywords: ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’; Aristotelian ethics; virtue ethics; moral naturalism; Philippa Foot; John McDowell Resum. Anscombe llegint a Aristòtil Fent-ne una lectura particular, «Modern Moral Philosophy» (La filosofia moral moder- na) d’Anscombe es considera un text fundador en el renaixement de l’ètica de la virtut. Vist així, Anscombe insinua que és possible fer ètica sense emprar conceptes com «deure moral» o «obligació moral»; l’exemple perfecte n’és l’ètica aristotèlica.
    [Show full text]
  • Humility and Decision Making in Companies
    Working Paper WP-1164-E January, 2017 HUMILITY AND DECISION MAKING IN COMPANIES Antonio Argandoña IESE Business School – University of Navarra Av. Pearson, 21 – 08034 Barcelona, Spain. Phone: (+34) 93 253 42 00 Fax: (+34) 93 253 43 43 Camino del Cerro del Águila, 3 (Ctra. de Castilla, km 5,180) – 28023 Madrid, Spain. Phone: (+34) 91 357 08 09 Fax: (+34) 91 357 29 13 Copyright © 2017 IESE Business School. IESE Business School-University of Navarra - 1 HUMILITY AND DECISION MAKING IN COMPANIES Antonio Argandoña1 Abstract The literature on humility has grown considerably in recent decades within the fields of psychology and ethics, as have the applications of humility in organizational management, leadership and the functioning of teams. This paper is intended as a further contribution to this literature. Its starting point is the hypothesis that an excellent manager must be a virtuous person and it indicates what is involved in managing an organization as justification for this hypothesis. It also explains the distinctive qualities of humility and how this virtue fosters management quality. For Humility: Reflections on Its Nature and Function Jennifer Cole Wright, editor Keywords: Ethics, Firm, Humility, Management, Organization, Virtue. 1 Professor emeritus, "la Caixa" Chair of Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance, IESE. IESE Business School-University of Navarra HUMILITY AND DECISION MAKING IN COMPANIES Introduction In previous decades, the pioneering work of G.E.M. Anscombe (1958), Philippa Foot (1978), Alasdair MacIntyre (1984) and other philosophers opened the way for a new approach to the theory of virtues. In later years, this approach emerged in business ethics through the writings of Robert Solomon (1992) and others.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 on VIRTUE ETHICS and ARISTOTLE Introduction Modern
    1 ON VIRTUE ETHICS AND ARISTOTLE Introduction Modern moral philosophy has long been dominated by two basic theories, Kantianism or deontology on the one hand and utilitarianism or consequentialism on the other. Increasing dissatisfaction with these theories and their variants has led in recent years to the emergence of a different theory, the theory of virtue ethics. 1 According to virtue ethics, what is primary for ethics is not, as deontologists and utilitarians hold, the judgment of acts or their consequences, but the judgment of agents. The good person is the fundamental category for moral philosophy, and the good person is the person of good character, the person who possesses moral virtue. 2 Virtue ethics, according to its authors, is not a new theory. Not only are its origins very old, and very various, but Aristotle is still widely held to be its finest exponent. 3 Contemporary virtue theorists, therefore, are often characterized as neo-Aristotelians. They are Aristotelians because they accept Aristotle’s fundamental ideas. They are neo-Aristotelians because they reject some of his conclusions, notably about manual labor, slavery, and women. 4 But neo-Aristotelians depart from Aristotle in more ways than those they expressly admit, and in particular over the connection between ethics and politics. The work of Aristotle that is most used and referred to by 1 Elizabeth Anscombe led the way with her article ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ in Philosophy 33 (1958). She has been followed in particular by: Philippa Foot, Virtues and Vices ; Peter Geach, The Virtues ; Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue . See also Nancy Sherman, The Fabric of Character ; Michael Slote, Goods and Virtues ; Bernard Williams, Moral Luck and Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy .
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Utilitarianism UUA01 4/26/07 11:25 AM Page Ii
    UUA01 4/26/07 11:25 AM Page i understanding utilitarianism UUA01 4/26/07 11:25 AM Page ii Understanding Movements in Modern Thought Series Editor: Jack Reynolds This series provides short, accessible and lively introductions to the major schools, movements and traditions in philosophy and the his- tory of ideas since the beginning of the Enlightenment. All books in the series are written for undergraduates meeting the subject for the first time. Published Understanding Empiricism Understanding Phenomenology Robert G. Meyers David R. Cerbone Understanding Existentialism Understanding Poststructuralism Jack Reynolds James Williams Understanding Hegelianism Understanding Utilitarianism Robert Sinnerbrink Tim Mulgan Understanding Hermeneutics Understanding Virtue Ethics Lawrence K. Schmidt Stan van Hooft Forthcoming titles include Understanding Ethics Understanding Pragmatism Tim Chappell Axel Mueller Understanding Feminism Understanding Psychoanalysis Peta Bowden and Jane Mummery Joanne Faulkner and Matthew Sharpe Understanding German Idealism Will Dudley Understanding Rationalism Charlie Heunemann Understanding Naturalism Jack Ritchie UUA01 4/26/07 11:25 AM Page iii understanding utilitarianism Tim Mulgan ACUMEN UUA01 4/26/07 11:25 AM Page iv © Tim Mulgan, 2007 This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. No reproduction without permission. All rights reserved. First published in 2007 by Acumen Acumen Publishing Limited Stocksfield Hall Stocksfield NE43 7TN www.acumenpublishing.co.uk ISBN: 978-1-84465-089-7 (hardcover) ISBN: 978-1-84465-090-3
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Moral Philosophy Before and After Anscombe
    Enrahonar. An International Journal of Theoretical and Practical Reason 64, 2020 39-62 Modern Moral Philosophy Before and After Anscombe Constantine Sandis University of Hertfordshire [email protected] Reception date: 13-11-2019 Acceptance date: 27-1-2020 Abstract This paper argues that there was considerably more philosophy of action in moral theory before 1958 (when Anscombe complained of its lack under the banner ‘philosophy of psychology’) than there has been since. This is in part because Anscombe influenced the formation of ‘virtue theory’ as yet another position within normative ethics, and her work contributed to the fashioning of ‘moral psychology’ as an altogether distinct (and now increasingly empirical) branch of moral philosophy. Keywords: Anscombe; moral philosophy; virtue theory; normative ethics Resum. Filosofia moral moderna abans i després d’Anscombe Aquest article argumenta que hi havia considerablement més filosofia d’acció en teoria moral abans de 1958 (quan Anscombe es va queixar que en faltava sota el lema «filosofia de la psicologia») que la que hi ha hagut des de llavors. Això es deu en part al fet que Anscombe va influir en la formació de la «teoria de la virtut» com una posició més dins de l’ètica normativa, i el treball d’Anscombe va contribuir a la formació de la «psicologia moral» com una branca completament diferent (i ara cada vegada més empírica) de la filosofia moral. Paraules clau: Anscombe; filosofia moral; teoria de la virtut; ètica normativa Summary Prologue 3. Moral Philosophy Before 1957 1. ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ Epilogue 2. Moral Philosophy Since 1958 Bibliographical references ISSN 0211-402X (paper), ISSN 2014-881X (digital) https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/enrahonar.1278 40 Enrahonar 64, 2020 Constantine Sandis Prologue This paper argues for the following three theses: i) There was considerably more philosophy of action in moral theory before 1958 (when Anscombe complained of its lack under the banner ‘philos- ophy of psychology’) than there has been since.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtue Ethics and Professional Roles
    VIRTUE ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL ROLES JUSTIN OAKLEY Monash University DEAN COCKING Charles Sturt University The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge ,UK West th Street, New York, –, USA Stamford Road, Oakleigh, , Australia Ruiz de Alarcón , Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town , South Africa http://www.cambridge.org © Justin Oakley and Dean Cocking This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeface Baskerville MT /. pt. System QuarkXPress™ [] A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Oakley, Justin, – Virtue ethics and professional roles / Justin Oakley, Dean Cocking. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. . Professional ethics. I. Cocking, Dean, – II. Title. . –dc hardback Contents Preface page ix Acknowledgements xii Introduction The nature of virtue ethics The regulative ideals of morality and the problem of friendship A virtue ethics approach to professional roles Ethical models of the good general practitioner Professional virtues, ordinary vices Professional detachment in health care and legal practice Bibliography Index vii The nature of virtue ethics1
    [Show full text]
  • Through Humility the Path to Godliness Ascends on High”: St
    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA “Through Humility The Path to Godliness Ascends on High”: St. Augustine’s Challenge to Modern Thought on Humility and Greatness A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology and Religious Studies Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By Joseph John McInerney Washington, D.C. 2012 “Through Humility the Path to Godliness Ascends on High”: St. Augustine’s Challenge to Modern thought on Humility and Greatness Joseph John McInerney, Ph.D. Director: Joseph E. Capizzi, Ph.D. “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Lk 14:11). Few thinkers in the Christian tradition place greater emphasis on this Gospel principle than Augustine of Hippo. Augustine asserts that humility is the key to one’s salvation and is the foundation of a person’s greatness. Humility plays no such role, however, in the thought of classical or modern philosophers. The moral theories of Aristotle, Plotinus, Hume, and Nietzsche espouse little relation between humility and moral excellence or propose a view of that relationship in which humility is opposed to greatness. The purpose of this study is to detail the moral principles various thinkers use to approach the ideas of humility and greatness, thus demonstrating the manner in which each author comes to a particular conclusion regarding the relationship between the two principles. The focus of the study will be upon Augustine’s conception of humility and greatness, as his understanding is unique in the positive value it attributes to humility in its relation to human excellence.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 “Practical Reason and Teleology: Macintyre's Critique of Modern Moral Philosophy” Kenneth Mcintyre Most of the Thinkers
    “Practical Reason and Teleology: MacIntyre’s Critique of Modern Moral Philosophy” Kenneth McIntyre Most of the thinkers examined in this volume focus their criticism on the various ways in which modern conceptions of rationality, especially those connected with the methods of the natural sciences, distort or undermine other, often modern, conceptions of rationality that are not based on the methods of the natural sciences. Alasdair MacIntyre presents a more encompassing critique of Enlightenment rationalism which condemns almost all conceptions of modern rationality or reasonableness. Indeed, almost half of the subjects in this volume are specific objects of MacIntyre’s critique of modern rationalism.1 However, unlike many of the other thinkers in this volume, the source of MacIntyre’s dissatisfaction with modern rationalism lies not in his skepticism about its ‘scientism,’ but in what he understands to be the incoherence of modern moral philosophy and practice. He was not the first contemporary philosopher to make this claim, however. In 1958, G.E.M. Anscombe published an essay titled “Modern Moral Philosophy” in the journal Philosophy. Anscombe’s brief essay presented a case for rejecting the whole of modern moral philosophy, in part, because the terms of modern moral philosophy (e.g. moral obligation, moral duty, etc.) “are survivals, or derivatives of survivals, from an earlier conception of ethics which no longer generally survives, and are only harmful without it.”2 Anscombe suggested that the moral language which informs and is characteristic of modern moral philosophy (and by this, she means moral philosophy after Aquinas) only really makes sense within a philosophical anthropology which is defined by a teleological conception of human beings.
    [Show full text]
  • Fortifying Virtue Ethics: Recognizing the Essential Roles of Eudaimonia and Phronesis
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by KU ScholarWorks FORTIFYING VIRTUE ETHICS: RECOGNIZING THE ESSENTIAL ROLES OF EUDAIMONIA AND PHRONESIS BY © Copyright 2009 Kara W.Y. Tan Bhala Submitted to the graduate degree program in Philosophy and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. _______________________ Chairperson _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ Date Defended_____________________________ The Dissertation Committee for Kara W.Y. Tan Bhala certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: FORTIFYING VIRTUE ETHICS: RECOGNIZING THE ESSENTIAL ROLES OF EUDAIMONIA AND PHRONESIS Committee: _____________________ (Chairperson) _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ Date approved:_______________ ii ABSTRACT There is not one, single theory of virtue ethics that commands general agreement in the field. The aim of this dissertation is to help resolve this problem by positing that eudaimonia and phronesis are necessary for a comprehensive virtue ethics theory. I argue for this thesis in two ways: positively and negatively. In a positive way, I give arguments supporting the thesis. Eudaimonia justifies the virtues. We need the virtues to enable us to live a characteristically good human life. Phronesis is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of virtues. It plays four roles: (1) determines the mean of a disposition (2) establishes the means to achieve proposed ends (3) contributes to determining the end (4) helps motivate actions. On the negative side, I critique the work of authors who reject or downplay eudaimonia and phronesis, thereby strengthening support for my thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Utilitarianism and Dewey's “Three Independent Factors in Morals”
    Draft for presentation 08/2008 at ISUS-X Conference, Boalt Hall, Berkeley. All rights reserved. Comments welcomed at the JanusBlog (http://janusblog.squarespace.com) or [email protected] Utilitarianism and Dewey’s “Three Independent Factors in Morals” Guy Axtell University of Nevada, Reno Abstract. The centennial of Dewey & Tuft’s Ethics (1908) provides a timely opportunity to reflect both on Dewey’s intellectual debt to utilitarian thought, and on his critique of it. In this paper I examine Dewey’s assessment of utilitarianism, but also his developing view of the good (ends; consequences), the right (rules; obligations) and the virtuous (approbations; standards) as “three independent factors in morals.” This doctrine (found most clearly in the 2nd edition of 1932) as I argue in the last sections, has significant forward-going implications for debates in ethics, insofar as it functions to deflate debates among ethicists that turns on claims about the conceptual primacy of any one of these three ethical concepts over the other two. To find what “permanent value each group contributes to the clarification and direction of reflective morality” was the task Dewey set for himself. But to carry that project through demands showing also why the application of considerations of ends, rules, and virtues to problems of practice is not quite as many self-described utilitarians, deontologists, and virtue ethicists conceive it. 1. Introduction. Dewey and Tufts position in the 1908 first edition of Ethics was that of a “socialized utilitarianism.” Dewey’s debt to and sympathies with utilitarianism are readily apparent. The recognized positive truths of utilitarianism include that the moral quality of any impulse or active tendency can be told only by observing the sort of consequences to which it leads in actual practice; Utilitarians are right to insist that we become aware of the moral quality of our impulses on the basis of the results they engender.
    [Show full text]