By Brad Hooker
Developing Deontology includes six new essays in moral idea by means of prime modern ethical philosophers. every one essay considers options favourite within the improvement of deontological methods to ethics, and those essays provide a useful contribution to that improvement.
- Essays are contributed through Michael Smith, Philip Stratton-Lake, Ralph Wedgewood, David Owens, Peter Vallentyne, and Elizabeth Harman - all prime modern ethical philosophers
- Each essay deals an unique and formerly unpublished contribution to the subject
- A major addition to the sphere for someone with an curiosity within the improvement of deontology
- The assortment is edited through a number one philosophical scholar
Read Online or Download Developing Deontology: New Essays in Ethical Theory PDF
Similar ethics & morality books
Der vorliegende Band enthält den textual content der Vorlesung, die Husserl unter dem Titel "Einführung in die Phänomenologie der Erkenntnis" in Göttingen im Sommersemester 1909 gehalten hat. Im ersten Teil dieser Vorlesung setzt Husserl sich mit dem Verhältnis von "allgemeiner Phänomenologie und phänomenologischer Philosophie" auseinander.
Smooth moral thought has skilled a resurgence of curiosity within the virtues. lengthy relegated to the traditional and medieval prior, advantage conception is now thought of by way of many to be a conceivable replacement to the differently dominant Kantian and Utilitarian moral theories. Alasdair Maclntyre is a imperative determine during this circulation, whose paintings varieties an increasing but constant and influential venture to deal with primary concerns in moral thought and American tradition.
An creation to Badiou's philosophical suggestion and its implications for different humanistic disciplines and the social sciences.
At the family tree of Morality is Nietzsche's such a lot influential, provocative, and difficult paintings of ethics. during this quantity of newly commissioned essays, fourteen prime philosophers provide clean insights into a number of the work's valuable questions: How did our dominant values originate and what services do they honestly serve?
- Living with indifference
- Exploring Buddhism
- Virtue Ethics: A Pluralistic View
- Morality: its nature and justification
- Roots of the Human Condition (Library of Traditional Wisdom)
- Two Worlds of International Relations
Additional resources for Developing Deontology: New Essays in Ethical Theory
Given that any moral theory, in so far as it aims to provide the fundamental moral principles or principle, should provide principles of this form – that is, principles that pick out recommenders rather than simply provide recommendations – any attempt to reduce a Rossian pluralism to a single principle of moral reasons must pick out a single feature that provides a plausible account of all four reasons. At the very least a failure to do so will be a strong pro tanto consideration against the reductive theory, for in this respect it will have lost much of the simplicity the Rossian theory has, despite the gain in simplicity gained by the reduction itself.
But it is much harder to present a plausible monistic reduction if we are starting with principles of moral reasons. This is because the facts picked out by these principles must be able to be reasons in the four different ways I have outlined above. What I want to do now is brieﬂy illustrate how this form of deontological pluralism makes it harder to subsume the plurality of basic moral principles under a single principle in a plausible way by showing how it deals with a particular subsumptive strategy employed by consequentialists.
That would make my helping you in this way something I owe to you. This in turn would be sufﬁcient warrant the claim that by failing to press the fuse switch I not only act wrongly, but wrong you. RECALCITRANT PLURALISM 27 Principles of moral reasons also pick out the reason an individual has to resent my failure to do what I ought. These features are the same as the reason why I ought to do the acts I failed to do. In relation to A it is the fact that I promised him that I would do a certain act, and in relation to B it is the fact that he did me a favour in the past.