Though the revised edition of A Theory of Justice, published in 1999, is the definitive statement of Rawls's view, so much of the extensive literature on Rawls's theory refers to the first edition. This reissue makes the first edition once again available for scholars and serious students of Rawls's work.

The problem I am going to discuss here concerns practical rationality, rationality not in thought but in action. More particularly, I am going to discuss the rationality, or absence of rationality of moral action. And ‘moral action’ shall mean here something done by someone who believes that to act otherwise would be contrary to, say, justice or charity; or again not done because it is thought that it would be unjust or uncharitable to do it. The question is whether in (...) so acting, or refusing to act, this person will be acting rationally, even in cases where he or she believes that not only desire but self-interest would argue in favour of the wrongdoing. (shrink)

The author presents and defends three theses: (1) "the first is that it is not profitable for us at present to do moral philosophy; that should be laid aside at any rate until we have an adequate philosophy of psychology." (2) "the second is that the concepts of obligation, And duty... And of what is morally right and wrong, And of the moral sense of 'ought', Ought to be jettisoned if this is psychologically possible...." (3) "the third thesis is that (...) the differences between the well-Known english writers on moral philosophy from sidgwick to the present day are of little importance." (staff). (shrink)

My immediate aim in this lecture is to contribute something to the apt characterization of our representation and knowledge of the specifically human life form, as I will put it - and, to some extent, of things ‘human’ more generally. In particular I want to argue against an exaggerated empiricism about such cognition. Meditation on these themes might be pursued as having a kind of interest of its own, an epistemological and in the end metaphysical interest, but my own purpose (...) in the matter is practical-philosophical. I want to employ my theses to make room for a certain range of doctrines in ethical theory and the theory of practical rationality - doctrines, namely, of natural normativity or natural goodness, as we may call them. I am not proposing to attempt a positive argument for any such ‘neo-Aristotelian’ position, but merely to defend such views against certain familiar lines of objection; and even here my aims will be limited, as will be seen. (shrink)

This fitting Festschrift contains twelve essays by students, colleagues and friends of Philippa Foot, all of them leading figures in philosophy. Some deal directly and even centrally with Foot’s own work, the others with topics she has herself written on and in a manner relatively sympathetic to what she has said about those topics. Foot’s interests in ethics have been fairly wide-ranging, and that fact is well reflected in the essays of the present volume. Elizabeth Anscombe writes on ‘Practical Inference’; (...) Simon Blackburn on ‘The Flight to Reality’; Rosalind Hursthouse on ‘Applying Virtue Ethics’; Anthony Kenny on ‘Philippa Foot on Double Effect’; Gavin Lawrence on ‘The Rationality of Morality’; John McDowell on ‘Two Sorts of Naturalism’; Warren Quinn on ‘Putting Rationality in its Place’; David Sachs on ‘Notes on Unfairly Gaining More: Pleonexia’; Thomas Scanlon on ‘Fear of Relativism’; Michael Thompson on ‘The Representation of Life’; David Wiggins on ‘Categorical Requirements: Kant and Hume on the Idea of Duty’; and Bernard Williams on ‘Acts and Omissions: Doing and Not Doing’. A short review cannot hope to do justice to all the interesting (and controversial) material to be found in these dedicatory essays. And rather than attempt to discuss even two or three of them, I think it better to choose a single one for closer consideration, namely, Warren Quinn’s rich and fascinating critique of subjectivist/instrumentalist views of practical reason. (shrink)

It is the famous first thesis of Anscombe's ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ that we should lay aside moral philosophy—indeed ‘ banish ethics totally from our minds’! —‘until we have an adequate philosophy of psychology’. By a ‘philosophy of psychology’ I understand Anscombe to mean grammatical investigations into various psychological concepts that hold the key to ethics. Anscombe herself instances ‘action’, ‘intention’, ‘pleasure’, ‘wanting’ . Without such an understanding, she thinks we will simply go astray.