DOCSLIB.ORG

Les Ateliers De L'éthique

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Les Ateliers De L'éthique LA REVUEDUCREUM DE L’ÉTHIQUE DE ATELIERS LES VOLUME 3NUMÉRO1 PRINTEMPS/SPRING 2008 ISSN 1718-9977 COMITÉ ÉDITORIAL/EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Direction : Martin Blanchard, CRÉUM ([email protected]) Charles Blattberg, CRÉUM Mira Johri, CRÉUM Rabah Bousbaci, CRÉUM Julie Lavigne, Université du Québec à Montréal Ryoa Chung, CRÉUM Robert Leckey, Université McGill Peter Dietsch, CRÉUM Christian Nadeau, CRÉUM Francis Dupuis-Déri, Université du Québec à Montréal Wayne Norman, CRÉUM UNE REVUE MULTI- Geneviève Fuji Johnson, CRÉUM Christine Tappolet, CRÉUM DISCIPLINAIRE SUR LES Axel Gosseries, Université de Louvain-la-Neuve Luc Tremblay, CRÉUM ENJEUX NORMATIFS DES Béatrice Godard, CRÉUM Daniel Marc Weinstock, CRÉUM POLITIQUES PUBLIQUES ET Joseph Heath, Université de Toronto Bryn Williams-Jones, CRÉUM DES PRATIQUES SOCIALES. NOTE AUX AUTEURS GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS Un article doit compter de 10 à 20 pages environ, simple Papers should be between 10 and 20 pages, single spa- interligne (Times New Roman 12). Les notes doivent être ced (Times New Roman 12). Notes should be placed at the 2 placées en fin de texte. L'article doit inclure un résumé end of the text. An abstract in English and French of no d'au plus 200 mots en français et en anglais. Les articles more than 200 words must be inserted at the beginning seront évalués de manière anonyme par deux pairs du of the text. Articles are anonymously peer-reviewed by comité éditorial. members of the editorial committee. Les consignes aux auteurs se retrouvent sur le site de la Instructions to authors are available on the journal web- revue (www.creum.umontreal.ca). Tout article ne s’y site (www.creum.umontreal.ca). Papers not following VOLUME 3 NUMÉRO 1 conformant pas sera automatiquement refusé. these will be automatically rejected. PRINTEMPS/SPRING 2008 A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL ON THE NORMATIVE CHALLENGES Vous êtes libres de reproduire, distribuer et communiquer les You are free to copy and distribute all texts of this journal under OF PUBLIC POLICIES textes de cette revue au public selon les conditions suivantes : the following conditions: AND SOCIAL PRACTICES. • Vous devez citer le nom de l'auteur et de la revue • You must cite the author of the text and the name of the journal • Vous ne pouvez pas utiliser les textes à des fins commerciales • You may not use this work for commercial purposes • Vous ne pouvez pas modifier, transformer ou adapter les textes • You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work Pour tous les détails, veuillez vous référer à l’adresse suivante : For all details please refer to the following address: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/legalcode http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/legalcode ISSN 1718-9977 Article: 79 È 87 Bibliography: 88 Notes: 88 È 89 ABSTRACT In this paper, I present a non standard objection to moral impartialism. My idea is that moral impartialism is questionable when it is committed to a principle we have reasons to reject: the 79 principle of self-other symmetry. According to the utilitarian version of the principle, the benefits and harms to the agent are exactly as relevant to the global evaluation of the goodness of his action as the benefits and harms to any other agent. But this view sits badly with the “Harm principle” which stresses the difference between harm to others and harm to the self. According to the deontological version, we have moral duties to ourselves which are exactly symmetrical to our duties to others. But there are reasons to believe that the idea of a duty to the self is not VOLUME 3 NUMÉRO 1 coherent. PRINTEMPS/SPRING 2008 ARTICLES: RÉSUMÉ Dans cet article, je présente une objection non standard à l’impartialisme moral. Ma thèse est SELF-OTHER ASYMMETRY que l’impartialisme est douteux lorsqu’il admet un principe que nous avons des raisons de reje- ter: le principe de la symétrie soi-autre. Selon la version utilitariste de ce principe, les bienfaits et RUWEN OGIEN les torts faits à l’agent sont d’exactement la même importance à l’évaluation globale du bien CNRS, PARIS d’une action que les bienfaits ou les torts faits à tout autre agent. Mais cette théorie s’harmo- nise mal avec le « principe de non-nuisance » qui insiste sur la différence entre un tort fait à autrui et à soi-même. Selon la version déontologique, nous avons des devoirs moraux envers nous- mêmes exactement symétriques à nos devoirs envers autrui. Mais il y a des raisons de croire que l’idée d’un devoir envers soi-même n’est pas cohérente. The clause “whether in your own person or in the person of any other” is a non-equivocal affirmation of self-other moral symmetry. Suicide or masturbation are “moral crimes” according to Kant, partly because of their supposed moral symmetry with killing and sexual abuse. Finally, one could even say that virtue ethics is based on self- other symmetry because it values equally care to others and self-care. Actually, this is Michael Slote’s master argument in favour of virtue ethics3, and it raises a perplexity concerning the scope of my criti- cism of self-other symmetry. SOME PERPLEXITIES Many philosophers deny that impartiality could be all there is to If virtue ethics is committed to self-other symmetry, as Michael Slote ethics. According to them, a morality limited to impartiality would claims, and if virtue ethics does not belong to the class of impartia- be unrealistic, globally irrelevant to our lives and even repugnant in list moral theories, as some moral philosophers would probably say, some cases. then by objecting to self-other symmetry, the target could be larger I present another kind of objection to moral impartiality, less than moral impartialism. It could include virtue ethics as well, or melodramatic if I may say. My idea is that moral impartiality is ques- some versions of it at least. It could make my argument less limited tionable when it is committed to a principle we have reasons to reject: than I have suggested. But there are other perplexities. the principle of self-other symmetry. Self-other symmetry seems to be a very important feature of But what is self-other symmetry? many moral theories, but, at the same time, one can find elements of ARTICLES self-other asymmetry in these theories. Think of the “Harm principle” SELF-OTHER SYMMETRY put forward by John Stuart Mill. According to Mill: “The only part Self-other symmetry is a basic commitment in many moral theories, of the conduct of anyone which he is amenable to society is that which but it takes different forms depending on the global structure of the concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his inde- 80 theory. pendence is of right absolute. Over himself, over his own body and 4 ARTICLES One could say, for example, that utilitarian theories are based mind, the individual is sovereign” . In more concrete words, according on self-other symmetry because, according to theses theories, the to the Harm principle, one can be morally or legally permitted to do benefits and harms to the agent are exactly as relevant to the global to oneself what one is not permitted morally or legally to do to others, evaluation of the goodness of his action as the benefits and harms the most striking example being, again, suicide as opposed to killing. to any other agent 1. And one could say that deontological theories The “Harm principle”, as a kind of self-other asymmetry, goes against of Kantian flavour are based on self-other symmetry because, accor- the utilitarian general commitment to self-other symmetry. ding to them, we have moral duties to ourselves, which are exactly One could have expected that Mill, being a prominent representative symmetrical to our duties to others. The famous second main for- of utilitarianism, would also be a prominent supporter of self-other mulation of the categorical imperative, in the Groundwork of the symmetry. But for him, the harms to the agent are not as relevant to Metaphysics of Morals, also called the “Formula of Humanity”, stres- the global evaluation of the goodness of his action as the harms to ses this symmetry as explicitly as possible: any other agent. So, he is not a supporter of self-other symmetry Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in after all. your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as According to Michael Slote, Kant is also guilty of inconsis- a means but always at the same time as an end2. tency in his treatment of self-other symmetry5. On the one hand, Kant LES ATELIERS DE L’ÉTHIQUE È V. 3 N. 1 È PRINTEMPS/SPRING 2008 claims that we should apply to ourselves exactly the same moral rules Kant’s moral system or of Slote’s version of virtue ethics. I just want we apply to any other person. He argues not only for the wrongness to present reasons to reject some forms of self-other symmetry and or impermissibility of killing others but for the wrongness or imper- other reasons to endorse some forms of self-other asymmetry. missibility of suicide as well. And this is clearly a commitment to self-other symmetry. FORMS OF SELF-OTHER ASYMMETRY But for Michael Slote, this view sits badly with what Kant Self-other asymmetry expresses itself in different ways. The most says about the absence of duties to pursue one’s own happiness 6. For well-known are Kant, the concept of duty applies only in case we are reluctant to do 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 5/20 Charles Larmore
    1 5/20 Charles Larmore: Curriculum Vitae W. Duncan MacMillan Family Professor in the Humanities Professor of Philosophy Brown University 45 Prospect Street Providence, Rhode Island 02912 Education: 1968-72 Harvard University (A.B. magna cum laude, Greek and philosophy; Phi Beta Kappa) 1972-73 Ecole normale supérieure, Paris, France 1976-77 Universität Münster, Germany 1973-78 Yale University (Ph.D., Philosophy) Positions held: 1978-97 Columbia University (1978-80 Society of Fellows; 1980-87 Assistant Professor of Philosophy; 1987-90 Associate Professor; 1990-97 Professor of Philosophy; 1992-97 Professor of German) 1991-92 Maître de recherche, CREA (Ecole polytechnique, Paris) 1992-95 Chairman, Department of Philosophy, Columbia University 1997-2006 Professor of Philosophy and Political Science, Lecturer in Law, University of Chicago 2001-5 Chester D. Tripp Professor in the Humanities, University of Chicago 2005-6 Raymond W. & Martha Hilpert Gruner Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago 2006- Professor of Philosophy, W. Duncan MacMillan Family Professor in the Humanities, Brown University Areas of specialization: Moral and political philosophy, History of philosophy (17th – 20th centuries) Professional Activities: Editorial board: Journal of Philosophy (1987-1996; 2008- ) Ethics, Book Review Editor (2000-2008) Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie 2 Filosofia e questioni pubbliche La Società degli individui Cahiers de philosophie de l'Université de Caen Comprendre European Journal of Political Theory Philosophiques
    [Show full text]
  • MP Concepts De L'été(1)Bis.Indd
    Les concepts de l’éthique MMPP CConceptsoncepts ddee ll'e'étteé(1)bis.ind1(1)bis.ind1 1 115/10/085/10/08 115:13:545:13:54 Collection « L’avocat du diable » dirigée par Charles Girard Des mêmes auteurs Ruwen Ogien a publié notamment : Le rasoir de Kant et autres essais de philosophie pratique, Paris-Tel-Aviv, l’Éclat, 2003. Penser la pornographie, Paris, PUF, 2003, 2e édition revue et corrigée, 2008. La panique morale, Paris, Grasset, 2004. La philosophie morale (avec Monique Canto-Sperber), Paris, PUF, 2004, 2e édition revue et corrigée, 2006. Pourquoi tant de honte ?, Nantes, Pleins Feux, 2006. La morale a-t-elle un avenir ?, Nantes, Pleins Feux, 2006. L’éthique aujourd’hui. Maximalistes et minimalistes, Paris, Gallimard, 2007. La liberté d’offenser. Le sexe, l’art et la morale, Paris, La Musadine, 2007. Christine Tappolet a publié : Émotions et valeurs, Paris, PUF, 2000. – avec Sarah Stroud, (dir.), Weakness of Will and Pratical Irrationality, Oxford, Clarendon Press d’Oxford University Press, 2003. – avec Luc Faucher, (dir.), The Modularity of Emotions, volume théma- tique du Canadian Journal of Philosophy, supp. vol. 32, Calgary, Calgary University Press, 2008. ISBN : 978 2 7056 6800 6 © 2008, HERMANN ÉDITEURS, 6 rue de la Sorbonne, 75005 PARIS Toute reproduction ou représentation de cet ouvrage, intégrale ou partielle, serait illicite sans l’autorisation de l’éditeur et constituerait une contrefaçon. Les cas stric- tement limités à l’usage privé ou de citation sont régis par la loi du 11 mars 1957. MMPP CConceptsoncepts ddee ll'e'étteé(1)bis.ind2(1)bis.ind2 2 115/10/085/10/08 115:13:545:13:54 RUWEN OGIEN CHRISTINE TAPPOLET Les concepts de l’éthique Faut-il être conséquentialiste ? HERMANN ÉDITEURS DES SCIENCES ET DES ARTS Depuis 1876 MMPP CConceptsoncepts ddee ll'e'étteé(1)bis.ind3(1)bis.ind3 3 115/10/085/10/08 115:13:555:13:55 Collection de philosophie normative contemporaine « Je suis l’adversaire, mon rôle est de contredire.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Analysis of the Principle of Benefit and Harm Benefit and Harm Are Essential Elements in Any Consideration of Bioethical Nature
    Estudo crítico do princípio de benefício e dano Flávio Rocha Lima Paranhos 1, Volnei Garrafa 2, Rosana Leite de Melo 3 Resumo Benefício e dano são elementos essenciais em toda ponderação de natureza bioética. A prevenção de da- nos está presente no juramento de Hipócrates como preocupação central. O objetivo deste artigo é analisar criticamente o princípio de maximizar benefício e minimizar dano, tendo como ponto de partida o artigo da Declaração Universal sobre Bioética e Direitos Humanos (DUBDH) que trata do tema. Propomos, pri- meiramente, uma abordagem geral, filosófica, a partir de autores clássicos, como Kant e Mill, mas também contemporâneos, como Ruwen Ogien e Edgar Morin, entre outros. Seguimos com algumas abordagens da literatura bioética brasileira e internacional. Nesse ponto, pudemos observar um viés claramente equivocado, na medida em que é proposto um conceito bastante limitado de benefício, por parte de alguns autores norte- -americanos. Ao valer-se de argumentos tradicionalmente principialistas para defender suas posições, tais autores reforçam (involuntariamente) a necessidade de outra via de ponderação bioética, a DUBDH. Palavras-chave: Bioética. Beneficência. Avaliação do benefício-risco. Método do caminho crítico. Resumen Artigos de atualização Artigos Estudio crítico del principio de beneficio y daño Beneficios y daños son elementos esenciales de cualquier ponderación de carácter bioético. La prevención de daños ya está presente en el juramento hipocrático como una preocupación central. El propósito de este artículo es analizar críticamente el principio de maximizar el beneficio y minimizar el daño, tomando como punto de partida el artículo de la Declaración Universal sobre Bioética y Derechos Humanos (DUBDH) que se ocupa de la temática.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Case for Sexbots
    Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 2020; 11: 171–190 Review Article Marc Behrendt* The moral case for sexbots In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, well-being and fulfilment of individuals in want of triumph, and self-abasement. The sex instinct will be eradi- intimacy and emotional connection, could be seen as a cated. We shall abolish the orgasm. There will be no loyalty tool for social progress and sexual justice. except loyalty to the Party. But always there will be the As Socrates brilliantly pointed out through Plato, most intoxication of power. Always, at every moment, there will be the ff thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who’s of human misery, su ering and wars, arise from our helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot unfulfilled bodily desires and frustrations (“Phaedo”, 66c). stamping on a human face, forever. The moral to be drawn from He of course advocated in favour of chastity and resisting this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one: don’t let it sexual temptation, but his basic premise and insight are happen. It depends on you. still valid today. Finally, the underlying questions I will explore in George Orwell the following pages are: how come such vast swaths of https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2020-0031 the progressive camp, adopt a conservative discourse, received February 28, 2020; accepted March 16, 2020 when it comes to sexual progress? Why is there such a Abstract: In this paper, I will try to examine the main staunch opposition to sexbots and the ensuing right to objections and moral qualms by some opponents to sexbots.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruwen Ogien Et John Dewey : Dialogue Pour Une Éthique Éducative De L’Hospitalité Christophe Point
    Document généré le 24 sept. 2021 12:47 Éthique en éducation et en formation Les Dossiers du GREE Ruwen Ogien et John Dewey : dialogue pour une éthique éducative de l’hospitalité Christophe Point Éthique minimale, individualisme et éducation à l’autonomie Résumé de l'article Numéro 10, hiver 2021 Notre travail cherche à faire dialoguer Ruwen Ogien et John Dewey sur le terrain de la philosophie de l’éducation, dans le but de construire avec eux une URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1076819ar éthique éducative valable pour nos régimes démocratiques. Plus précisément, DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/1076819ar nous nous intéressons au déploiement de l’éthique au sein des processus éducatifs que les points de convergences entre ces deux auteurs autorisent. Aller au sommaire du numéro Notre hypothèse de travail cherche à trouver, au-delà des différences de positions éthiques de ces deux auteurs, ce qui les rapproche et permettrait de tisser une éthique éducative commune. Cette dernière prend les traits d’une éthique de l’hospitalité, éthique où l’hospitalité sera envisagée dans un cadre Éditeur(s) démocratique, à la fois comme un mouvement envers les autres, mais Éthique en éducation et en formation - Les Dossiers du GREE également en direction de soi et du savoir. Ainsi, en distinguant l’hospitalité de l’appartenance, de la tolérance et de la bienveillance, nous faisons le pari qu’ensemble, Ogien et Dewey peuvent nous aider à construire cette éthique ISSN éducative de l’hospitalité dont nos démocraties actuelles ont tant besoin. 2561-1488 (numérique) Découvrir la revue Citer cet article Point, C.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Neutrality This Page Intentionally Left Blank Political Neutrality a Re-Evaluation
    Political Neutrality This page intentionally left blank Political Neutrality A Re-evaluation Edited by Roberto Merrill University of Minho, Portugal and Daniel Weinstock McGill University, Canada Selection, introduction and editorial matter © Roberto Merrill and Daniel Weinstock 2014 Chapters © Contributors 2014 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2014 978-0-230-28510-1 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2014 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries ISBN 978-1-349-33019-5 ISBN 978-1-137-31920-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/9781137319203 This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae Peter Railton Current Title and Office Address
    Curriculum Vitae Peter Railton Current title and office address: Home address: Gregory S. Kavka Distinguished University Professor John Stephenson Perrin Professor Arthur F. Thurnau Professor 1106 Lincoln Avenue Department of Philosophy Ann Arbor, MI 48104 The University of Michigan USA Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003 +1 734 995 0990 USA +1 734 395 1350 (cell) Tel. +1 734 764 6285 +1 734 763 2122 Fax +1 734 763 8071 [email protected] Education Harvard University, 1968-1971, A.B. in Philosophy (1971) Princeton University, 1974-l978, Ph.D. in Philosophy (1980) Thesis: Explaining Explanation: A Realist Account of Scientific Explanation and Understanding, David Lewis, advisor Academic employment Permanent: The University of Michigan, Assistant Professor (1979-83); Associate Professor (1983-90); Professor (1990- ) Visiting: Princeton University, 1990 The University of California, Berkeley, l984-85 Honors, awards, and special fellowships External Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, Member, Elected 2016 Institute of Philosophy Biennial Lectures, NYU, 2016 Center for the Study of Mind in Nature Lecture, University of Oslo, 2015 Dewey Lecture, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 2015 President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 2011-2012 Invited Fellow, National Humanities Center, 2010-2011 American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Member, Elected 2004 Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, 2001-02 American Council of Learned Societies Fellowship, 2000-01 National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship, 1999-2000
    [Show full text]
  • 48 Moral Minimalism in the Political Realm ∗
    48 Moral Minimalism in the Political Realm ∗ STELIOS VIRVIDAKIS There are various diverging answers to the traditional questions concerning the correct assessment of the relations between morality and politics. From Plato and Aristotle to Macchiavelli, Hobbes and Kant, philosophers have elab- orated different conceptions of these relations which could be interpreted as involving a form of subordination of politics to morality, or, on the contrary, of morality to politics. Contemporary liberal thinkers are usually suspicious of any talk about the need for a “moralization” of political life, to the extent that it may hide an objectionable commitment to the promotion of some substan- tive ideal of the good as a collective political goal. However, they often admit that they do respect and sustain a kind of political morality conforming to the values of liberal democracies1. The political morality they are ready to defend is sometimes associated with what is characterized as a minimalist approach to moral issues. The aim of this paper is to cast light on some aspects and versions of this approach, the interest of which goes beyond the concerns of liberal political philosophers, and to try to cast light on the more or less “thin” moral concepts which constitute its core. Minimalism here implies a substan- tial restriction or attenuation of the demands of morality and not a negative ∗Earlier versions of this paper were presented to different audiences in Herakleion, Tokyo, Nanjing and Athens. I am grateful to many friends and colleagues for their questions and sug- gestions and more particularly, to Dionyssis Anapolitanos, Georgia Apostolopoulou, Moon Such Byeon, Myrto Dragona-Monachou, Wolfgang Ertl, Anthony Hatzimoysis, Takashi Iida, Vasso Kindi, Patricia Kitcher, Philip Kitcher, Chrys Mantzavinos, Filimon Peonidis, Stathis Psillos, Pav- los Sourlas, Yannis Stephanou, and Gu Su.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Other Asymmetry Ruwen Ogien
    Document generated on 10/01/2021 2 a.m. Les ateliers de l'éthique The Ethics Forum Self-Other Asymmetry Ruwen Ogien Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2008 Article abstract In this paper, I present a non standard objection to moral impartialism. My URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1044607ar idea is that moral impartialism is questionable when it is committed to a DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1044607ar principle we have reasons to reject: the principle of self-other symmetry. According to the utilitarian version of the principle, the benefits and harms to See table of contents the agent are exactly as relevant to the global evaluation of the goodness of his action as the benefits and harms to any other agent. But this view sits badly with the “Harm principle” which stresses the difference between harm to Publisher(s) others and harm to the self. According to the deontological version, we have moral duties to ourselves which are exactly symmetrical to our duties to Centre de recherche en éthique de l’Université de Montréal others. But there are reasons to believe that the idea of a duty to the self is not coherent. ISSN 1718-9977 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Ogien, R. (2008). Self-Other Asymmetry. Les ateliers de l'éthique / The Ethics Forum, 3(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044607ar Tous droits réservés © Centre de recherche en éthique de l’Université de This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit Montréal, 2008 (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Other Asymmetry Ruwen Ogien
    Document generated on 10/18/2020 3:52 p.m. Les ateliers de l'éthique The Ethics Forum Self-Other Asymmetry Ruwen Ogien Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2008 Article abstract In this paper, I present a non standard objection to moral impartialism. My URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1044607ar idea is that moral impartialism is questionable when it is committed to a DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1044607ar principle we have reasons to reject: the principle of self-other symmetry. According to the utilitarian version of the principle, the benefits and harms to See table of contents the agent are exactly as relevant to the global evaluation of the goodness of his action as the benefits and harms to any other agent. But this view sits badly with the “Harm principle” which stresses the difference between harm to Publisher(s) others and harm to the self. According to the deontological version, we have moral duties to ourselves which are exactly symmetrical to our duties to Centre de recherche en éthique de l’Université de Montréal others. But there are reasons to believe that the idea of a duty to the self is not coherent. ISSN 1718-9977 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Ogien, R. (2008). Self-Other Asymmetry. Les ateliers de l'éthique / The Ethics Forum, 3 (1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044607ar Tous droits réservés © Centre de recherche en éthique de l’Université de This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit Montréal, 2008 (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online.
    [Show full text]
  • Justification Publique Et Déflationnisme Éthique / Étude Critique De Ruwen Ogien, La Panique Morale
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Érudit Article « Le cimeterre d’Ogien : justification publique et déflationnisme éthique » Ouvrage recensé : Étude critique de Ruwen Ogien, La panique morale, Paris, Grasset, 2004, 353 pages. par Nicolas Tavaglione Philosophiques, vol. 33, n° 2, 2006, p. 513-528. Pour citer cet article, utiliser l'information suivante : URI: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/013899ar DOI: 10.7202/013899ar Note : les règles d'écriture des références bibliographiques peuvent varier selon les différents domaines du savoir. Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter à l'URI https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l'Université de Montréal, l'Université Laval et l'Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. Érudit offre des services d'édition numérique de documents scientifiques depuis 1998. Pour communiquer avec les responsables d'Érudit : [email protected] Document téléchargé le 9 février 2017 02:03 Philo_psychopa_33.2 02/11/06 10:40 Page 513 Étude critique Le cimeterre d’Ogien : justification publique et déflationnisme éthique Étude critique de Ruwen Ogien, La panique morale, Paris, Grasset, 2004, 353 pages. NICOLAS TAVAGLIONE Département de sciences politiques Université de Genève [email protected] Depuis quelques années, les « questions sexuelles » occupent en France et en Europe le devant de la scène politique.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimal Ethics
    Minimal Ethics Marc-Antoine DILHAC Simply by analysing the moral problems of each and every one of us, Ruwen Ogien takes the stance of ‘minimal ethics’. His book reads like a good mystery novel in which the detective proves against all odds that there may be no crime, no victim, and no murderer. Reviewed: Ruwen Ogien, L’influence de l’odeur des croissants chauds sur la bonté humaine, et autres questions de philosophie morale expérimentale, Paris, Grasset, 2011. 280 p., €18.50. This book claims to be modest in scope, a simple ‘general introduction to ethics’ (p. 9) which, at first glance, limits itself to presenting the different plausible moral concepts and the basic problems of ethical justification. It is a book that philosophers, teachers and advanced students will readily place in the popular book category, almost something for the general public. This is precisely what makes it interesting, and should encourage both philosophers and non- philosophers to read it. Ruwien Ogien, a specialist in moral philosophy and promoter of minimal ethics, addresses his public in a style that is light, humorous and incisive, analysing the moral intuitions that are generally common to philosophers and non-philosophers alike, and which do not justify our placing “more weight on the judgments of this ‘moral elite’ than on those of each and every one of us” (p. 30). Does this ‘general introduction to ethics’ nevertheless pursue a specific philosophical project, and can a theory be identified? It seems to me that it does indeed contain the outline of a doctrine, and that at the end of the tortuous path mapped out by Ruwen Ogien, we find a paradoxical affirmation: ethics are too fragile to be given foundations.
    [Show full text]