On the priority of the right to the good
Kant-Studien 102 (3):316-334 (2011)
| Abstract | Rawls's view that the right is prior to the good has been criticized by various scholars from divergent points of view. Some contend that Rawls's teleological/deontological distinction based on the priority of the right is misleading while others claim that no plausible ethical theory can determine what is right prior to the good. There is no consensus on how to interpret the priority of right to the good; nor is there an agreement on the criteria of teleological/deontological distinction. In this article, I argue that the critics' interpretations of the principle of the priority of right to the good as well as their conceptions of the teleological/deontological distinction have serious shortcomings to the extent that they ignore rich theoretical resources we find in Kant's moral and political philosophy. Kant's conception of human dignity and his division of the doctrine of virtue and the doctrine of right supply powerful arguments to clarify and sustain the idea of the priority of right to the good and the teleological/deontological division | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMiriam Ronzoni (forthcoming). Teleology, Deontology, and the Priority of the Right: On Some Unappreciated Distinctions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.
Julian Fink (2007). Is the Right Prior to the Good? South African Journal of Philosophy 26 (2):143-149.
Wojciech Sadurski (1987). Review: "When Ideals Clash": Smith, Calabresi, and the Priority of the Right Over the Good. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 6 (2):259 - 280.
Peter Vallentyne (1987). The Teleological/Deontological Distinction. Journal of Value Inquiry 21 (1):21-32.
Hugo Omar Seleme (2004). ¿Puede El Utilitarismo Ser Deontológico? Una Respuesta a Kymlicka (Can Utilitarianism Be Deontological? A Response to Kymlicka). Crítica 36 (107):39 - 66.
Rachel Barney (2008). The Carpenter and the Good. In D. Cairns, F. G. Herrmann & T. Penner (eds.), Pursuing the Good: Ethics and Metaphysics in Plato's Republic. University of Edinburgh.
Robert S. Taylor (2003). Rawls’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (3):246–271.
Pekka Väyrynen (2008). Slim Epistemology with a Thick Skin. Philosophical Papers 37 (3):389-412.
Larry S. Temkin (2003). Equality, Priority or What? Economics and Philosophy 19 (1):61-87.
Peter Vallentyne (1988). Gimmicky Representations of Moral Theories. Metaphilosophy 19 (3-4):253-263.
Susan Mendus (2002). Impartiality in Moral and Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
L. Gregory Jones (1988). Should Christians Affirm Rawls' Justice as Fairness? A Response to Professor Beckley. Journal of Religious Ethics 16 (2):251 - 271.
Ingmar Persson (2001). Equality, Priority and Person-Affecting Value. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 4 (1):23-39.
Daniel Callahan (2001). Health Care for Children: A Community Perspective. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26 (2):137 – 146.
Robert S. Taylor (2004). Self-Realization and the Priority of Fair Equality of Opportunity. Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (3):333-347.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-09-07Total downloads26 ( #47,662 of 549,087 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,228 of 549,087 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
