The question of the source of the moral "ought" is no small question, nor is it unimportant. Our own philosophical tradition has dealt with the question in several ways producing a variety of answers. Some of these include locating the "ought" in the structure of reason, in the human being's desire for pleasure, or in the will of God. The reason why the question is so important is because different conceptions of the source of the moral ought ultimately give rise to different conceptions of what is right and wrong; they also affect the way we answer the biggest of all ethical questions, why be good
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Dialogue as a Site of Transformative Possibility.Shilpi Sinha - 2010 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 29 (5):459-475.
Bearing Response-Ability: Theater, Ethics and Medical Education. [REVIEW]Kate Rossiter - 2012 - Journal of Medical Humanities 33 (1):1-14.
Similar books and articles
Apologies: Levinas and Dialogue.Bob Plant - 2006 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 14 (1):79 – 94.
Two Conceptions of the Synthetic A Priori.Marian David - 1997 - In L. E. Hahn (ed.), The Philosophy of Roderick Chisholm (The Library of Living Philosophers). Chicago: Open Court. pp. 629--651.
The Contemporary Significance of Confucianism.Tang Yijie & Yan Xin - 2008 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 3 (4):477-501.
The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments.Dale Hample, Bing Han & David Payne - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (4):405-421.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads90 ( #58,284 of 2,177,974 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #317,205 of 2,177,974 )
How can I increase my downloads?