Two Concepts of Morality

Philosophy 41 (155):19 - 33 (1966)
Abstract
It is a surprising fact that moral philosophers have rarely examined the distinction between what I shall call ‘positive’ or ‘social’ morality on the one hand and ‘autonomous’ or ‘individual’ morality on the other. Accordingly, conceptual and moral issues of the greatest importance have been neglected. The distinction is, I take it, recognised by Hegel, when he contrasts Sittlichkeit with Moralität . However, the rival sides who give a conceptual or a moral preference to one concept over the other rarely come to grips with one another, and the deep conflicts between them are concealed instead of being brought out into the open. Only in Burke's diatribe against Rousseau, Bradley's critique of Sidgwick , Hobhouse's crusade against Bosanquet , Prichard's attack on Green , Hart's criticism of Hare , and above all in Oakeshott's onslaught on Rationalism do we get a glimpse of one of the main issues of moral philosophy and of morality. For just as we have two concepts, so we have two moral conceptual schemes, each of which gives a central place to one concept at the expense of the other. Those who suppose that morality is or ought to be wholly or mainly a social concept may recommend submission to a tradition. Those, on the other hand, who suppose morality to be primarily an individual or independent concept will recommend independent decisions. I want in this paper, firstly, to explain the differences between the two concepts, secondly, to show that neither of them is conceptually illegitimate or degenerate, and lastly, to determine what place, if any, each ought to have in a rational morality
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0031819100066122
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,781
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Genealogy of Morality and Law.José Antonio Marina - 2000 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (3):303-325.
How Religion Co-Opts Morality in Legal Reasoning: A Case Study of Lawrence V. Texas.Julie C. Van Camp - 2007 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):241-251.
How Religion Co-Opts Morality in Legal Reasoning.Julie C. van Camp - 2007 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):241-251.
Concepts.Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence - 2011 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Neil Cooper's Concepts of Morality.Peter Singer - 1971 - Mind 80 (319):421-423.
Added to PP index
2010-08-10

Total downloads
19 ( #267,556 of 2,199,239 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #149,211 of 2,199,239 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature