|Abstract||In this chapter I want to take up some of the problems that must be faced by any defender of the objectivity of ethics who wishes to make sense of the actual complexity of the subject. The treatment will be general and very incomplete. Essentially I shall discuss some examples in order to suggest that the enterprise is not hopeless.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Michael Bergmann (2000). Deontology and Defeat. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (1):87-102.
David McNaughton & Piers Rawling (1998). On Defending Deontology. Ratio 11 (1):37–54.
Nicola Lacey & M. Lee (2003). The Epistemological Foundations of Artificial Agents. Minds and Machines 13 (3):339-365.
Tom Dougherty (2013). Agent-Neutral Deontology. Philosophical Studies 163 (2):527-537.
Hajnal Andréka, Judit X. Madarász, István Németi & Gergely Székely, A Logic Road From Special to General Relativity.
Jennie Louise (2004). Relativity of Value and the Consequentialist Umbrella. Philosophical Quarterly 54 (217):518–536.
Samuel Scheffler (1989). Deontology and the Agent: A Reply to Jonathan Bennett. Ethics 100 (1):67-76.
Lawrence C. Becker (1972). Axiology, Deontology, and Agent Morality: The Need for Coordination. [REVIEW] Journal of Value Inquiry 6 (3):213-220.
Douglas W. Portmore (2005). Combining Teleological Ethics with Evaluator Relativism: A Promising Result. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (1):95–113.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads169 ( #2,570 of 722,787 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #11,510 of 722,787 )
How can I increase my downloads?