Graduate studies at Western
OUP USA (2011)
|Abstract||Are there things we should value because they are, quite simply, good? If so, such things might be said to have "absolute goodness." They would be good simpliciter or full stop - not good for someone, not good of a kind, but nonetheless good (period). They might also be called "impersonal values." The reason why we ought to value such things, if there are any, would merely be the fact that they are, quite simply, good things. In the twentieth century, G. E. Moore was the great champion of absolute goodness, but he is not the only philosopher who posits the existence and importance of this property. Against these friend of absolute goodness, Richard Kraut here builds the argument he made in WHAT IS GOOD AND WHY, demonstrating that goodness is not a reason-giving property - in fact, there may be no such thing. It is, he holds, an insidious category of practical thought, because it can be and has been used to justify what is harmful and condemn what is beneficial. Impersonal value draws us away from what is good for persons. His strategy for opposing absolute goodness is to search for domains of practical reasoning in which it might be thought to be needed, and this leads him to an examination of a wide variety of moral phenomena: pleasure, knowledge, beauty, love, cruelty, suicide, future generations, bio-diversity, killing in self-defense, and the extinction of our species. Even persons, he proposes, should not be said to have absolute value. The special importance of human life rests instead on the great advantages that such lives normally offer. "When one reads this, one sees the possibility of real philosophical progress. If Kraut is right, I'd be wrong to say that this book is good, period. Or even great, period. But I will say that, as a work of philosophy, and for those who read it, it is excellent indeed." - Russ Shafer-Landau, Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Madison|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Buy the book||$39.95 new (21% off) $39.95 used (21% off) $45.00 direct from Amazon (10% off) Amazon page|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Imtiaz Moosa (2002). Does the Failure of Utilitarianism Justify a Belief in Intrinsic Value? Philo 5 (2):123-142.
Diana Lobel (2011). Being and the Good: Maimonides on Ontological Beauty. Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 19 (1):1-45.
David Keyt (2007). The Good Man and the Upright Citizen in Aristotle's Ethics and Politics. Social Philosophy and Policy 24 (2):220-240.
Amelie Oksenberg Rorty (2011). The Goodness of Searching: Good as What? Good for What? Good for Whom? In Ruth Weissbourd Grant (ed.), In Search of Goodness. University of Chicago Press.
Raimond Gaita (2012). R. F. Holland. Philosophical Investigations 35 (3-4):260-276.
Delio (2009). Is Creation Really Good? American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83 (1):3 - 22.
Samantha Vice (2005). On the Tedium of the Good. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (4):459 - 476.
Justin Klocksiem (2011). Perspective-Neutral Intrinsic Value. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (3):323-337.
Julian Fink (2007). Is the Right Prior to the Good? South African Journal of Philosophy 26 (2):143-149.
Jenny Teichman (2003). Good for and Good About. Philosophy 78 (1):115-121.
John Nolt (2009). The Move From Is to Good in Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics 31 (2):135-154.
Richard J. Arneson (2000). Perfectionism and Politics. Ethics 111 (1):37-63.
Added to index2012-04-15
Total downloads17 ( #78,069 of 726,777 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 726,777 )
How can I increase my downloads?