This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
28 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Felix Adler (1904). The Problem of Teleology. International Journal of Ethics 14 (3):265-280.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Robin Attfield (1975). Toward a Defence of Teleology. Ethics 85 (2):123-135.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Harry Binswanger (1992). Life-Based Teleology and the Foundations of Ethics. The Monist 75 (1):84-103.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Gregory Cooper (1998). Teleology and Environmental Ethics. American Philosophical Quarterly 35 (2):195 - 207.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Manuel M. Davenport (1992). Comments on “Teleology in Spinoza's Ethics”. Southwest Philosophy Review 8 (2):87-88.
  6. Douglas J. den Uyl (1992). Teleology and Agent-Centeredness. The Monist 75 (1):14-33.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Evan Fales (2009). Review of Stewart Goetz, Freedom, Teleology, and Evil. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2009 (8).
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Julian Fink (2007). Is the Right Prior to the Good? South African Journal of Philosophy 26 (2):143-149.
    One popular line of argument put forward in support of the principle that the right is prior to the good is to show that teleological theories, which put the good prior to the right, lead to implausible normative results. There are situa- tions, it is argued, in which putting the good prior to the right entails that we ought to do things that cannot be right for us to do. Consequently, goodness cannot (always) explain an action's rightness. This indicates that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Alessandro Giordani & Paolo Gomarasca (2012). Trust as the End of Practical Reason. Justification Procedures. In Botturi Francesco (ed.), Understanding Human Experience. Peter Lang.
    This paper is about the epistemology of practical reason and, in particular, the function of trust as an end to be pursued rationally in praxis. Our purpose is threefold: first, to present an outline of the structure of practical reason; secondly, to compare practical reason and scientific reason in order to determine the main differences between these two basic manifestations of human reason; finally, to argue in favour of a non-utilitarian model of practical reason in the light of some results (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Robert Guay, Teleology and Deontology, Etc. Copyright ©2003.
    One can reasonably ask whether or not there is any distinct domain of the ethical. That is, one might wonder whether ethical issues are distinct from, for example, prudential or aesthetic ones, perhaps by invoking duty or obligation or a specific kind of value. But that question, at least for now, is outside the scope of our discussion. For now, we’ll assume that there are such things as ethical questions and that you recognize them when you see them.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Axel Honneth (1998). Between Proceduralism and Teleology: An Unresolved Conflict in Dewey's Moral Theory. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 34 (3):689 - 711.
  12. Jonathan Jacobs (2001). Metaethics and Teleology. Review of Metaphysics 55 (1):41 - 55.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. O. C. Jensen (1936). Formalism and Teleology. Philosophy 11 (44):466 - 474.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. James Scott Johnston (2011). The Dewey-Hutchins Debate: A Dispute Over Moral Teleology. Educational Theory 61 (1):1-16.
    In this essay, James Scott Johnston claims that a dispute over moral teleology lies at the basis of the debate between John Dewey and Robert M. Hutchins. This debate has very often been cast in terms of perennialism, classicism, or realism versus progressivism, experimentalism, or pragmatism. Unfortunately, casting the debate in these terms threatens to leave the reader with the impression that Dewey and Hutchins were simply talking past each other, that one was wrongheaded while the other correct, or that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Louis F. Kort (1976). On a Recent Defense of Teleology. Ethics 86 (2):171-174.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Kathleen League (1992). Teleology in Spinoza's Ethics. Southwest Philosophy Review 8 (1):77-83.
  17. A. W. Moore (1909). Absolutism and Teleology. Philosophical Review 18 (3):309-318.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Douglas W. Portmore, Consequentializing Commonsense Morality.
    This is Chapter 4 of my Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality. In this chapter, I argue that that any plausible nonconsequentialist theory can be consequentialized, which is to say that, for any plausible nonconsequentialist theory, we can construct a consequentialist theory that yields the exact same set of deontic verdicts that it yields.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Eric Reitan (2010). Stewart Goetz Freedom, Teleology, and Evil . (London: Continuum, 2008). Pp. 216. £60.00 (Hbk). Isbn 9781847064813. Religious Studies 46 (1):130-135.
  20. Miriam Ronzoni (2010). Teleology, Deontology, and the Priority of the Right: On Some Unappreciated Distinctions. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (4):453 - 472.
    The paper analyses Rawls's teleology/deontology distinction, and his concept of priority of the right. The first part of the paper aims both 1) to clarify what is distinctive about Rawls's deontology/teleology distinction (thus sorting out some existing confusion in the literature, especially regarding the conflation of such distinction with that between consequentialism and nonconsequentialism); and 2) to cash out the rich taxonomy of moral theories that such a distinction helpfully allows us to develop. The second part of the paper examines (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Steven Ross (2013). Morality, Teleology, Objectivity, Authority. Philosophical Forum 44 (4):373-393.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Mark Schroeder (2006). Not so Promising After All: Evaluator-Relative Teleology and Common-Sense Morality. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (3):348–356.
    Douglas Portmore has recently argued in this journal for a "promising result" – that combining teleological ethics with "evaluator relativism" about the good allows an ethical theory to account for deontological intuitions while "accommodat[ing] the compelling idea that it is always permissible to bring about the best available state of affairs." I show that this result is false. It follows from the indexical semantics of evaluator relativism that Portmore's compelling idea is false. I also try to explain what might have (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Walter Smith (1895). The Teleology of Virtue. International Journal of Ethics 5 (2):181-197.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Jenny Teichman (2003). Good for and Good About. Philosophy 78 (1):115-121.
    Ethical relativists and subjectivists hold that fact must be distinguished from value, ‘is’ from ‘ought’ and reason from emotion. Their distinctions have been called into question, notably by Philippa Foot (Natural Goodness 2001), also by Alasdair Macintyre (Dependent Rational Animals 1999). Reason in the form of the life sciences—ethology, biology—indicates that what is good or bad for an individual animal and its species are matters of objective fact. There is nothing relativistic about the idea that fresh meat is good for (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Douglas J. Den Uyl (1992). Teleology and Agent-Centeredness. The Monist 75 (1):14 - 33.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Peter Vallentyne (1988). Teleology, Consequentialism, and the Past. Journal of Value Inquiry 22 (2):89-101.
    Act teleological theories are theories that judge an action permissible just in case its outcome is maximally good.[1] It is usually assumed that act teleological theories cannot be @i, i.e., make the permissibility of actions depend on what the past was like (e.g., on what promises were made, what wrong doings were done, and more generally on what actions were performed).[2] I shall argue that this is not so. Although @u act teleological theories, such as classical act utilitarianism, are not (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. James J. Walsh (1980). Teleology in the Ethics of Buridan. Journal of the History of Philosophy 18 (3):265-286.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Christopher Woodard, Pragmatism and Teleology.
    This paper connects two ideas. The first is that some common responses to ethical views are responses to their degrees of pragmatism, where a view’s degree of pragmatism is its sensitivity to ethically relevant changes in the actor’s circumstances. I claim that we feel the pull of opposing pro-pragmatic and antipragmatic intuitions in certain cases. This suggests a project, of searching for an ethical view capable of doing justice to these opposing intuitions in some way. The second central idea is (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation