First published in 1966. Professor Dryer has furnished a highly illuminating account of Kant’s _Critique of Pure Reason _by unfolding its central argument. _Kant’s Solution for Verification in Metaphysics _brings out the light which Kant has to throw on central topics of philosophy. It takes its place as an indispensable guide to every student of the _Critique of Pure Reason. _.

First published in 1966. Professor Dryer has furnished a highly illuminating account of Kant’s _Critique of Pure Reason _by unfolding its central argument. _Kant’s Solution for Verification in Metaphysics _brings out the light which Kant has to throw on central topics of philosophy. It takes its place as an indispensable guide to every student of the _Critique of Pure Reason. _.

Mill is neither an act-utilitarian nor a rule-utilitarian. Although he professes to regard “utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions”, he in fact makes no appeal to it in determining in Utilitarianism what actions are “of more absolute obligation than any others”. Nor does he appeal to it in his arguments for the two main conclusions of his essay, On Liberty.

Early in the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle writes, “It is a common principle which must be accepted that we must act in accord with orthos logos. What orthos logos is will be discussed later”. Although scholars have pored over Aristotle’s Ethics for centuries and can paraphrase what he says about orthos logos, obscurity remains as to just what he understands by it. This obscurity can be dispelled by focusing once again on those few sections in Aristotle familiar to all students of (...) the Ethics which bear most directly upon the topic. Aristotle explains what he understands by orthos logos in the context of being good at deliberating. Since he frequently illustrates deliberating by instances of deliberation in the practice of an art, we may first examine what he has to say about deliberating in such a context. (shrink)

No one should be put off from reading Miles' Logik undMetaphysik bei Kant by his telling us that he is following the ‘phenomenological-philological method’ Heidegger practiced, as shown in his Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, his earliest work on Kant and his last to be published. I do not claim to understand Miles' conception of this method. Whatever it be, what Miles actually presents is a careful examination of a number of crucial passages in Kant's first Critique (...) in Kantian terms. From it even the most seasoned student of the Critique will find light. (shrink)

Jonathan Bennett has produced a sequel to his book on the first half of the Critique of Pure Reason. He does not try to cover all the rest of the Critique. He restricts himself to the Transcendental Dialectic. He rightly claims that his is the only book in English treating exclusively of the Dialectic as a whole. It is not written as a commentary dealing with passage by passage. Many passages are left untreated. A distinctive merit is his extensive comparison (...) of Kant with Descartes and Leibniz. (shrink)

Mill is neither an act-utilitarian nor a rule-utilitarian. Although he professes to regard “utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions”, he in fact makes no appeal to it in determining in Utilitarianism what actions are “of more absolute obligation than any others”. Nor does he appeal to it in his arguments for the two main conclusions of his essay, On Liberty.

I shall unfold Kant’s views on three topics. Kant holds that knowledge of anything’s existence is obtained only by existential judgments. He distinguishes several respects in which the predicate of such a judgment differs from other predicates. In the light of these, Kant sets forth what is required for verifying existential judgments.

Utilitarianism, For and Against contains in a single volume a slightly revised version of An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics which J. J. C. Smart published in 1961, together with a critique of it by Bernard Williams. Stuart Hampshire gives another critique in Morality and Pessimism.* After touching on Hampshire I shall outline what seems distinctive of Smart's utilitarianism then consider Williams’ objections.If I remember rightly, Bentham wrote an ‘analysis of the effects of Christianity on the temporal happiness (...) of mankind’. In his Leslie Stephen Lecture, Hampshire gives utilitarianism a similar examination. We all know that for its fathers, utilitarianism was not simply a moral theory. They set out to do good in the world. Hampshire acknowledges that for long utilitarianism did much good. (shrink)

Many medical ethicists accept the thesis that there is no moral difference between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapy. In this paper, we offer an interesting counterexample which shows that this thesis is not always true. Withholding is distinguished from withdrawing by the simple fact that therapy must have already been initiated in order to speak coherently about withdrawal. Provided that there is a genuine need and that therapy is biomedically effective, the historical fact that therapy has been initiated entails a (...) claim to continue therapy that cannot be attributed to patients who have not yet received therapy. This intrinsic difference between withholding and withdrawing therapy is of moral importance. In many instances, patients will waive this claim. But when one considers withdrawing therapy from one patient to help another in a setting of scarce resources, this intrinsic moral difference comes into sharp focus. In an era of shrinking medical resources, this difference cannot be ignored. (shrink)