|Abstract||The question of the source of the moral "ought" is no small question, nor is it unimportant. Our own philosophical tradition has dealt with the question in several ways producing a variety of answers. Some of these include locating the "ought" in the structure of reason (Kant), in the human being's desire for pleasure (Utilitarianism), or in the will of God (Aquinas). The reason why the question is so important is because different conceptions of the source of the moral ought ultimately give rise to different conceptions of what is right and wrong; they also affect the way we answer the biggest of all ethical questions, why be good.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Valerie Tiberius (2002). Virtue and Practical Deliberation. Philosophical Studies 111 (2):147 - 172.
Dale Hample, Bing Han & David Payne (2010). The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments. Argumentation 24 (4):405-421.
Vincent Stuart (ed.) (1977). Order. Distributed by Random House.
J. L. Schellenberg (2005). The Hiddenness Argument Revisited (II). Religious Studies 41 (3):287 - 303.
Tang Yijie & Yan Xin (2008). The Contemporary Significance of Confucianism. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 3 (4):477 - 501.
Marian David (1997). Two Conceptions of the Synthetic A Priori. In L. E. Hahn (ed.), The Philosophy of Roderick Chisholm (The Library of Living Philosophers).
Bob Plant (2006). Apologies: Levinas and Dialogue. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 14 (1):79 – 94.
Thomas W. Smythe & Thomas G. Evans (2007). Intuition as a Basic Source of Moral Knowledge. Philosophia 35 (2):233-247.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads58 ( #16,866 of 549,087 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,228 of 549,087 )
How can I increase my downloads?