In defence of honour

The Philosophers' Magazine 53 (53):22-31 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The object of the exercise is to understand what we can do to stop something bad. It would be better if people stopped for the purest of motives, but it’s best if they stop. And if the choice is between their stopping for the wrong reasons and their not stopping I favour their stopping for the wrong reasons. Kant may be right that people ought to stop killing because they see that it’s wrong. That ought to be enough, but it may not be, and if it isn’t, if there’s something else that can actually get them to stop, then I favour using it.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,880

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Defence, Civil Honour, and Artificial Will.Boyd Jonathan - 2015 - Hobbes Studies 28 (1):35-49.
Stop Telling me What to Feel!Hanna Pickard - 2019 - Philosophical Topics 47 (2):1-25.
Moral dilemmas.Mark Sainsbury - 2009 - Think 8 (22):57-63.
From Is to Ought via Psychology.John T. Wilcox - 1964 - Review of Metaphysics 18 (2):254 - 266.
The Wrong Answer to an Improper Question?David Copp - 2007 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (sup1):97-130.
Climate change.James Garvey - 2010 - The Philosophers' Magazine 50 (50):50-51.
Why Incest is Usually Wrong.Robert William Fischer - 2012 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 19 (1):17-31.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-12-02

Downloads
106 (#201,992)

6 months
10 (#436,689)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references