David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (5):493-501 (2011)
There are two fundamental classes of terms traditionally distinguished within moral vocabulary: the deontic and the aretaic. The terms from the first set serve in the prescriptive function of a moral code. The second class contains terms used for a moral evaluation of an action. The problem of the relationship between the aretaic and the deontic has not been discussed often by philosophers. It is, however, a very important and interesting issue: any normative ethical theory which takes as basic one set of these concepts should justify such choice and establish, at least implicitly, the logical relation with the other set. This paper is organized around the criticism of Stocker’s ‘sameness thesis’ (Stocker 1973 ): the claim that ‘good’ or ‘right’ mean the same thing. It is first presented in Stocker’s own formulation and criticized as implausible in that form. Some friendly modifications to his idea are suggested and then further discussed with the skeptical conclusion: no matter how close we bring deontic and aretaic notions, the gap between them will remain and any attempt to define or even explain one set of terms in another will leave something behind
|Keywords||Ethics Virtue ethics Moral theory|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
R. M. Hare (1952). The Language of Morals. Oxford Clarendon Press.
Jerrold Levinson (1978). Properties and Related Entities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 39 (1):1-22.
Terence Parsons (1990). Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. The Mit Press.
W. D. Ross (2002). The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press.
Henry Sidgwick (1907/1996). The Methods of Ethics. Thoemmes Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jesse Couenhoven (2010). Against Metaethical Imperialism: Several Arguments for Equal Partnerships Between the Deontic and Aretaic. Journal of Religious Ethics 38 (3):521-544.
Paul McNamara (2000). Toward a Framework for Agency, Inevitability, Praise and Blame. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 (2):135-159.
J. Wesley Robbins (1976). Professor Frankena on Distinguishing an Ethic of Virtue From an Ethic of Duty. Journal of Religious Ethics 4 (1):57 - 62.
Liezl van Zyl (2011). Rightness and Goodness in Agent-Based Virtue Ethics. Journal of Philosophical Research 36:103-114.
Joanna G. Patsioti (2007). The Relevance of an Aretaic Model in Business Ethics. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 1:175-180.
John Francis Horty (2001). Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press.
Michael J. Almeida (1990). Deontic Logic and the Possibility of Moral Conflict. Erkenntnis 33 (1):57 - 71.
Christine Tappolet, The Normativity of Evaluative Concepts. Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Kevin Mulligan.
Berislav Žarnić (2010). A Logical Typology of Normative Systems. Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy 2 (1):30-40.
Sven Ove Hansson (1997). Situationist Deontic Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (4):423-448.
Leon Gumański (1980). On Deontic Logic. Studia Logica 39 (1):63 - 75.
Sieghard Beller (2008). Deontic Norms, Deontic Reasoning, and Deontic Conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):305 – 341.
Seppo Sajama (1988). Meinong on the Foundations of Deontic Logic. Grazer Philosophische Studien 32:69-81.
Leon Gumański (1983). An Extension of the Deontic Calculus DSC. Studia Logica 42 (2-3):129 - 137.
Added to index2011-01-02
Total downloads116 ( #7,908 of 1,096,870 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #74,153 of 1,096,870 )
How can I increase my downloads?