Abstract

Grice tells us that the grounds of judgments of obligation are the fundamental principles of morals, and that it is on these that judgments of moral good depend. He offers a double theory of obligation: basic, grounded in social contract; and ultra, grounded in the character of the particular moral agent. The book presents this case attractively. Although character is thus given a central role, Grice has very little to say about it. He discusses several related problems in ethical theory, as derived from Mill, Sidgwick, and G. E. Moore, and brings to bear considerable analytic technique; a strong example is the distinctions drawn between a motive and a reason for acting, and between a reason for acting and a reason for a judgment. Despite convincing use of examples, and competent reasoning, the upshot is yet another attempt to "ground" morals on a principle from which "moral scientists" can deduce the details. The opposition Grice presents to "the mistaken and almost universal assumption that the ground of moral 'ought' judgments must be some quite simple proposition to the effect that something is good," is his proposal that such grounds are the two simple propositions that some things are obligatory. His characterization of science as "a systematic body of knowledge" completes the nineteenth century flavor of the book. Missing are the concepts of interaction between the character of citizens and the goals of the society in which their contracts and obligations take place, and of the unique contribution of science to morals, that heuristic method which forces change of the body of knowledge, the techniques of investigation, and appropriately to Grice's case, of the character of its practitioners.—M. B. M.