Book contents
- Moral Philosophy
- Talking Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface
- List of Contributors
- Rationality and Goodness
- Acting well
- Apprehending Human Form
- Does Modern Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake?
- Absolutes and Particulars
- On the So-called Logic of Practical Inference
- Absolute Prohibitions without Divine Promises
- Moral Obligation
- The Lesser Evil
- The Ethics of Co-operation in Wrongdoing
- Authority
- The Force of Numbers
- Reason, Intention, and Choice
- Modern Moral Philosophy and the Problem of Relevant Descriptions
- Index
- References
Does Modern Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 May 2022
Book contents
- Moral Philosophy
- Talking Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface
- List of Contributors
- Rationality and Goodness
- Acting well
- Apprehending Human Form
- Does Modern Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake?
- Absolutes and Particulars
- On the So-called Logic of Practical Inference
- Absolute Prohibitions without Divine Promises
- Moral Obligation
- The Lesser Evil
- The Ethics of Co-operation in Wrongdoing
- Authority
- The Force of Numbers
- Reason, Intention, and Choice
- Modern Moral Philosophy and the Problem of Relevant Descriptions
- Index
- References
Summary
Someone once told me that the average number of readers of a philosophy article is about six. That is a particularly depressing thought when one takes into account the huge influence of certain articles. When I think of, say, Gettier’s article on knowledge, or Quine’s ‘Two Dogmas’, I begin to wonder whether anyone is ever likely to read anything I write. Usually the arguments of these very influential articles have been subjected to widespread analysis and interpretation. The case of Elizabeth Anscombe’s ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’, published in 1958, is something of an exception.1 That article has played a significant part in the development of so-called ‘virtue ethics’, which has burgeoned over the last three decades in particular. But there has been less close attention to its arguments than one might have expected.2
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Moral Philosophy , pp. 118 - 146Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Anscombe, G. E. M. 1997. ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’, repr. in Crisp and Slote, 1997, 26–44. Orig. pub. Philosophy, 33, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, K. 1988. ‘Radical Virtue Ethics’, in French, Uehling and Wettstein, 1988, 126–35.Google Scholar
Crisp, R. 2003. ‘Socrates and Aristotle on Happiness and Virtue’, in Heinaman, 2003, 55-78.Google Scholar
Crisp, R. forthcoming. ‘Hume on Virtue, Utility, and Morality’, in Gardiner, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Diamond, C. 1988. ‘The Dog that Gave Himself the Moral Law’, in French et al., 1988, 161–79.Google Scholar
Dodds, E. R. 1951. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dover, K. J. 1994. Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle. Repr. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Foot, P. 1978. ‘Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives’, repr. in Virtues and Vices, Oxford: Blackwell, 157–73.Google Scholar
French, P. A., Uehling, T. E., and Wettstein, H. K. (eds.) 1988. Ethical Theory: Character and Virtue, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 13. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Gardiner, S. forthcoming. Virtue Ethics: Old and New.Google Scholar
Hartigan, R. S. 1966. ‘Saint Augustine on War and Killing: The Problem of the Innocent’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 27, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. 1998. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, ed. Beauchamp, T.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Katz, L. D. (ed.) 2000. Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives. Thorverton: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. 1940. Greek—English Lexicon. 9th edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, , 1983. The Justice of Zeus. Rev. edn. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, F. 1967. On the Genealogy of Morals, trans. Kaufman, W. and Hollingdale, R.J., New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary, http://dictionary.oed.com/Google Scholar
Richter, D. 1995. ‘The Incoherence of the Moral “Ought”‘, Philosophy, 70, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. N. 2002. Praise and Blame: Moral Realism and its Applications. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schneewind, J. 1998. The Invention of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, A. 1995. On the Basis of Morality. Rev. edn., trans. E. Payne. Providence and Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Skorupski, J. 1993. ‘The Definition of Morality’, in Phillips-Griffiths, 1993, 121–44.Google Scholar
Sophocles, 1990. Fabulae, ed. Lloyd-Jones, H. and Wilson, N. G.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wiggins, D. 1998. Needs, Values, Truth. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. 1993. Shame and Necessity. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, A. 1990. Hegel’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar