Two essays on utilitarianism, written from opposite points of view, by J. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams. In the first part of the book Professor Smart advocates a modern and sophisticated version of classical utilitarianism; he tries to formulate a consistent and persuasive elaboration of the doctrine that the rightness and wrongness of actions is determined solely by their consequences, and in particular their consequences for the sum total of human happiness. In Part II Bernard Williams offers a sustained (...) and vigorous critique of utilitarian assumptions, arguments and ideals. He finds inadequate the theory of action implied by utilitarianism, and he argues that utilitarianism fails to engage at a serious level with the real problems of moral and political philosophy, and fails to make sense of notions such as integrity, or even human happiness itself. This book should be of interest to welfare economists, political scientists and decision-theorists. (shrink)

Introduction to one of the most important, controversial, and suggestive works of moral philosophy ever written.

Double effect reasoning is a nonconsequentialist analysis of the ethical status of an agent's acting to realize an end which is ethically in the clear when the realization of such an end inextricably causes some effect the causing of which is, prima facie, not ethically in the clear. In this work, I remove certain misunderstandings which attend discussions of DER: the relation between contemporary accounts and Aquinas's originating account , the relation between the intended/foreseen distinction operative in DER and the (...) doing/allowing distinction, and the various and misleading names given to the i/f distinction , I criticize the accounts of contemporary theorists of DER, e.g., Warren Quinn and Joseph Boyle. In my positive account, I solve the 'problem of closeness' presented by Philippa Foot. I argue that the i/f distinction is tenable, ethically significant, and applicable to the cases usually dealt with in contemporary accounts of DER . I argue that the i/f distinction belongs to a larger account of intention which attends to the relations between intention and deliberation . Noting that DER is not simply the i/f distinction , I argue that DER in part depends upon the relations between an agent's various responsibilities vis-a-vis the good and bad which he will conjointly effect in the cases to which DER applies. I argue that DER does not result in a conclusion which tells the agent what he must do, but, rather, in one indicating that a course of action is ethically in the clear. (shrink)

In this companion volume to Warrant: The Current Debate, Plantinga develops an original approach to the question of epistemic warrant; that is what turns true belief into knowledge. He argues that what is crucial to warrant is the proper functioning of one's cognitive faculties in the right kind of cognitive environment.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-3915%28198923%2918%3A4%3C334%3AAIACTD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P..

In der 1785 veröffentlichten Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten formuliert Kant erstmals die Prinzipien einer universalistischen Ethik der Autonomie, deren Einfluß bis heute ungebrochen ist. Schon beim Übergang von der gemeinen zur philosophischen Vernunfterkenntnis findet man die Hauptgedanken: In der Ethik geht es nicht primär um das gute Leben und das Glück, und es geht auch zunächst nicht darum, welche Handlungserfolge erzielt werden; Gegenstand moralischer Hochschätzung sind vielmehr Intentionen und Maximen. Gut ist, was für alle vernünftigen Wesen gilt, weil es (...) von ihnen als autonomen und vernünftigen Wesen gewollt wird. Die Schrift ist kurz, einfach gegliedert und verständlich geschrieben. Sie eignet sich daher als Einführung in Kants Ethik, enthält aber zugleich als Grundlegung alle wesentlichen Gedanken seiner praktischen Philosophie. Auf der Grundlage der Originalausgabe von 1785/86 wurde der Text völlig neu erstellt. Eines der wichtigsten Bücher der Philosophiegeschichte liegt damit in einer zuverlässigen und preisgünstigen Neuausgabe vor. (shrink)

A Norton Library edition of Locke's Second Treatise of Government, edited by A. John Simmons.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:OBJECT AND INTENTION IN MORAL JUDGMENTS ACCORDING TO AQUINAS JOHN FINNIS U'flkueTBity Oollege Unwersity of Oa:ford INTENTION IS OF END, choice is of means. A human aict ~s specified by (and s? is co.rrect:ly describe~ in terms of) its end. A human act IS specified by (and so Is correctly described in terms of) its object. An a:ct which is bad by reason of its object cannot be justified (...) by its end (its: good intention ). A human a:ct is specified by (and so is correctly described in iterms of) its intention.... Such a sequence of statements of St. Thomas ought to leave an impression of confusion. That impression would be heightened by the traditional representation of his analysis of acting in a schema of 12 terms signifying a sequence of psychological acts involved in willing and doing something. For in this analysis, intention seems to precede ·deliberating, judging, and choosing, and so, as deliberating, judging, and choosing often present themselves to consciousness distinctly, intention is presented in this analysis as if it were a distinct content of consciousness. When intention is so conceived, iit becomes possible to imagine that one can, so to speak, choose to direct (an) intention to or withhold it from the various aspects of one's chosen behavior, e.g. it.hose consequences which one foresees and welcomes or those one chooses to bring about onJ.y with regret. To some contemporary moralists, such approving or regretting of consequences is precisely what engages or disengages one's will and thus one's responsibility; what Christians or Jews used to regard as immoral can be uprightly done if done merely as a means to good ends and only with reluctance, I JOHN FINNIS regret, disapproval, i.e. if in no way approved or adopted as an end, i.e. if not really intended.1 Other modern moralists deny that one's responsibility for consequences of deliberate behavior can be so dependent on an inner ruct of intending (as distinct from the choosing and doing) ; they judge one responsible for everything one deliberately and with foresight causes.2 So they too reject the " doctrine " of double effect which Christian moralists had articulated as a development or codification of the elements of St. Thomas's discussion of self-defense, a disoussion whose first premise is that a human ad is specified (i.e. identified for the purposes of moral assessment) by its intention. Today there are other moralists again who combine the two foregoing lines of thought: they reject the doctrine of double effect as giving exaggernted importance to choice (means) over intention (end); one should take into account alil foreseeable consequences of one's chorce and ensure that it is likely to have a greater proportion of good than of bad consequences, and one must never approve (intend) any bad consequences -one may never deliberately cause them as ends hut only as means, means which one deliberwtely causes, not for their own sake, hut only for the sake of those proportionately greater good (or less bad) consequences which one does intend.8 1 Cf., e.g., Richard McCormick, S.J., "Medicaid and.Abortion," Theological Studies 45 (1984): 716-717. 2 Cf. Bruno Schueller, "The Double Effect in Catholic Thought: A Re· evaluation," in McCormick and Ramsey, Doimg Evil to Achieve Good (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1978), 191: "... 'intend as a means' and 'permit', when referring to a non-moral evil, denote exactly the same mental attitude." Schueller, "La moraliM des moyens," Recherches de Science Religieuse 68 (1980) : 211 (causilng moral evil is never justified, causing non-moral evils is justified in pursuit of non-moral good of corresponding importance); 221· 2: "pour tous les biens dont la possession contribue au bien-etre de l'homme... [q]uoi que l'on choisisse... les consequences negatives qui resultent du choix sont un pur moyen en vue des consequences positives qui en resultent." s Cf. K.-H. Peschke, "Tragfaehigkeit und Grenzen des Prinzips der Doppelwirkung," Studia Moralia 26 (1988): 110-112, where Peschke states the "principle of double effect" (which he ascribes to Catholic theology and attacks ) in terms not of what is directly or... (shrink)