Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T10:45:30.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Morality's having a Point

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

D. Z. Phillips  and
H. O. Mounce
D. Z. Phillips
Affiliation:
University of Wales.
H. O. Mounce
Affiliation:
University of Wales.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1958, moral philosophers were given rather startling advice. They were told that their subject was not worth pursuing further until they possessed an adequate philosophy of psychology. What is needed, they were told, is an enquiry into what type of characteristic a virtue is, and, furthermore, it was suggested that this question could be resolved in part by exploring the connection between what a man ought to do and what he needs: perhaps man needs certain things in order to flourish, just as a plant needs water; and perhaps what men need are the virtues, courage, honesty, loyalty, etc. Thus, in telling a man that he ought to be honest, we should not be using any special (moral) sense of ought: a man ought to be honest just as a plant ought to be watered. The ‘ought’ is the same: it tells us what a man needs.

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy , Volume 40 , Issue 154 , October 1965 , pp. 308 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1965

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

page 308 note 1 Anscombe, G. E. M.: ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’, Philosophy, Jan. 1958.Google Scholar

page 308 note 2 See ‘Moral Beliefs’, Arist. Soc.Proc, 1958;Google Scholar‘Moral Arguments’, Mind, 1958;Google Scholar‘Goodnessand Choice’, Arist. Soc. Proc, Supp. Vol. 35 (1961).Google Scholar

page 308 note 3 See Mary, Warnock's Introduction to ‘Utilitarianism’, Fontana Ed. (1962), p. 31.Google Scholar

page 308 note 4 Max, Black: ‘The Gap Between “Is” And “Should” ’, Philosophical Review, April, 1964.Google Scholar

page 308 note 5 G. H. von, Wright: ‘The Varieties of Goodness’, Routledge, 1963.Google Scholar

page 308 note 6 See Peters, R. S. and Griffiths, A. S. Phillips: ‘TheAutonomy of Prudence’, Mind, 1962.Google Scholar

page 308 note 7 See Richard, Wollheim's Introduction to Bradley's ‘Ethical Studies’, O.U.P. Paperback Ed. (1962), p. xvi.Google Scholar

page 309 note 1 Sec Mrs, Foot's excellent paper, ‘When Is A Principle A Moral Principle?’, Arist. Soc. Proc., Supp. Vol. 28 (1954).Google Scholar

page 314 note 1 We owe this example to Dr H. S. Price.

page 316 note 1 ‘Moral Beliefs’, pp. 96–97.

page 316 note 2 We owe it to Mr Rush Rhees.

page 317 note 1 Georges, Sorel: ‘Reflections On Violence’, trans, by Hulme, T. E., Collier Books Ed. (1961), pp. 229–230.Google Scholar