Sophia 50 (1):135-139 (2011)
A theory of morality acceptable to humanists must be one that can be accepted independently of religion. In this paper, I argue that while there is such a theory, it is a non-standard one, and its acceptance would have some far-reaching consequences. As one might expect, the theory is similar to others in various ways. But it is not the same as any of them. Indeed, it is a radically new theory. Like Hume’s ethics, it is founded on our natural sociability, and feelings of empathy for others. Like Aristotle’s theory, it incorporates an ethics of virtue. Like Kant’s theory, it regards the set of moral principles as those appropriate for a socially ideal society. But unlike Kant’s theory, it is essentially utilitarian. I call it ‘social contractual utilitarianism’
|Keywords||Humanism Secularism Social policy De facto social contracts Social contractual utilitarianism Morals as social ideals Eudaimonia Non-dominance theories of morality Individual Collective social agents|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Divine Command Morality and the Autonomy of Ethics.Robert Audi - 2007 - Faith and Philosophy 24 (2):121-143.
Modernity and Morality in Habermas's Discourse Ethics.James Gordon Finlayson - 2000 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 43 (3):319 – 340.
Sentiment and Structure: A Durkheimian Critique of Kohlberg's Moral Theory.Ernest Wallwork - 1985 - Journal of Moral Education 14 (2):87-101.
Morality and Moral Theory: A Reappraisal and Reaffirmation.B. Louden Robert - 1992 - Oxford University Press.
Added to index2010-03-31
Total downloads48 ( #109,995 of 2,178,175 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #316,504 of 2,178,175 )
How can I increase my downloads?