Ethics 75 (2):117-127 (1965)
|Abstract||In "reason and conduct" henry david aiken maintains that there is an antinomy of moral objectivity and freedom. Freedom requires that we each choose our own moral principles while objectivity requires that there be universally binding principles. He resolves the antinomy by proposing a principle of objectivity consistent with a diversity of moral codes, Thus forsaking universalizability in ethics. However, His notion of freedom is too stringent and his objectivity inadequate in not encompassing universalizability. Still, Aiken's concept of objectivity is important in pointing to the defeasibility of all our moral positions. (staff)|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
William Rehg (1999). Intractable Conflicts and Moral Objectivity: A Dialogical, Problem-Based Approach. Inquiry 42 (2):229 – 257.
By Alan Carter (2003). Morality and Freedom. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (211):161–180.
Phillip D. Gosselin (1979). Is There a Freedom Requirement for Moral Responsibility? Dialogue 18 (03):289-306.
Daniel Vokey (1990). Objectivity and Moral Judgement: Towards Agreement on a Moral Education Theory. Journal of Moral Education 19 (1):14-23.
Malcolm Williams (2006). Can Scientists Be Objective? Social Epistemology 20 (2):163 – 180.
Shaun Nichols (2004). After Objectivity: An Empirical Study of Moral Judgment. Philosophical Psychology 17 (1):3 – 26.
Jennifer Tannoch-Bland (1997). From Aperspectival Objectivity to Strong Objectivity: The Quest for Moral Objectivity. Hypatia 12 (1):155 - 178.
Steven Ross (2001). Two Problems of Moral Objectivity. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 1 (1):49-62.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #71,204 of 722,859 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,859 )
How can I increase my downloads?