Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:17:30.456Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem with Contemporary Moral Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Keith Burgess-Jackson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feminists, especially radical feminists, have reason to be dissatisfied with contemporary moral theory, but they are understandably reluctant to abandon the theoretical project until it is seen as unsalvageable. The problem is not, however, as Margaret Urban Walker claims, that theory is abstract, that it seeks to guide conduct, or that it postulates moral knowledge. The problem is that contemporary moral theory is foundational.

Type
COMMENT/REPLY
Information
Hypatia , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , Summer 1993 , pp. 160 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beauchamp, Tom L. 1991. Philosophical ethics: An introduction to moral philosophy, 2d ed. New York: McGraw‐Hill.Google Scholar
Fischer, John Martin and Ravizza, Mark. 1992. Ethics: Problems and principles Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Rachels, James. 1986. The elements of moral philosophy New York: McGraw‐Hill.Google Scholar
Rachels, James, ed. 1989. The right thing to do: Basic readings in moral philosophy New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Regan, Tom. 1983. The case for animal rights Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Regan, Tom, ed. 1986. Matters of life and death: New introductory essays in moral philosophy 2d ed. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Singer, Peter. 1979. Practical ethics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Margaret Urban. 1992. Feminism, ethics, and the question of theory. Hypatia 7(3): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar