Abstract

How, if at all, can we do moral philosophy in the light of the radical critique made by Elizabeth Anscombe in "Modern Moral Philosophy"? Among the principal theses of this essay is that ethical thinking suffers from a widespread appeal to incoherent uses of terms such as 'obligation,' 'ought,' 'right' and 'wrong.' I first explain and evaluate her thesis and the argument for it, and I then confront the challenge it poses: what ways are there of doing moral philosophy that avoid the kind of incoherence to which she has drawn our attention? The only way to show how it is possible for us to think about ethics is to demonstrate how to do so, using actual cases. The dissertation thus combines the critical study of central theoretical issues about ethics with concrete examination of serious practical issues . ;The first chapter deals directly with Anscombe's paper. In the next two, I examine the approaches to ethics recommended by other philosophers in the Wittgansteinian tradition to which Anscombe belongs: Sabina Lovibond, Renford Bambrough and Cora Diamond. A critique of Lovibond's Realism and Imagination in Ethics takes up the rest of chapter 2. Chapter 3 deals with Bambrough and Diamond. Drawing on their views, I suggest that moral philosophy should at least begin with an attempt to understand the facts relevant to central moral debates and issues. ;Chapter 4 focuses on the disagreement between the religious view of suicide as perhaps the ultimate sin and the non-religious view that suicide is often justified. I look at R. F. Holland's work as a good example of an attempt to understand the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the divide. In a somewhat parallel way, chapter 5 is concerned with the abortion debate. Here I look sympathetically at recent attempts by Ronald Dworkin and Warren Quinn to find some ground away from the two familiar poles of the debate. I do not claim that such attempts are always successful, but the effort to understand what they involve is at least worthwhile