Williams and Kant on Integrity
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9686218 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kenneth F Rogerson (Rice University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1983 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 461-478 |
| Publication date | 1983-09-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Dialogue (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0012-2173 • E-ISSN: 1759-0949 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s001221730004662x |
| OpenAlex | W2112337868 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 11 |
For some time now ethical debates have been fought on a field whose boundaries are the historical theories of Kant's deontology and Mill's utilitarianism. Recently, however, several have chosen to leave the battlefield entirely—to suggest, in various ways, that both of the major ethical theories share a common, flawed outlook. Thomas Nagel, for example, has argued that founding ethics on the sole ground of interpersonal obligations (a common feature of Kantianism and utilitarianism) unnecessarily “fragments” human value. Such an account has the effect of pitting one species of human value (duties to others) against other quite legitimate values (personal goals and special relationships). Or approaching the matter from quite another direction, Philippa Foot also holds that morality, as a system of interpersonal obligations, is too limiting. However, she proposes to counter the advancing forces of modern ethics by championing an Aristotelian doctrine of virtue
Deontological ethics · Doctrine · Environmental ethics · Epistemology · Field (mathematics) · Interpersonal communication · Kantian ethics · Limiting · Mill · Morality · Normative ethics · Political science · Social science · Sociology · Utilitarianism · Value (mathematics) · Virtue · Free Will and Agency · Law · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics
| Highly cited | No |
|---|