Utilitas 16 (2):184-192 (2004)
Adams 's suggestion that there must be one really right way of presenting the history of moral philosophy seems implausible to me, so I reject – with additional reasons – his charges against the structure of Invention of Autonomy. Skorupski's way of stating the ‘equal moral abilities’ thesis is not, I argue, very Kantian; a more Kantian version is not open to his objections. I am unconvinced by Schultz's claim that Sidgwick did not really hold that thesis. Deigh raises questions I cannot reply to here, but I do offer some texts that seem to show that Sidgwick is not guilty of the confusion about ‘ought’ with which Deigh charges him. Correspondence:c1 firstname.lastname@example.org
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments.Dale Hample, Bing Han & David Payne - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (4):405-421.
Commodification or Compensation: A Reply to Ketchum.H. M. Malm - 1989 - Hypatia 4 (3):128-135.
A Novel Interpretation of Plato's Theory of Forms.P. X. Monaghan - 2010 - Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads49 ( #103,699 of 2,152,527 )
Recent downloads (6 months)26 ( #12,935 of 2,152,527 )
How can I increase my downloads?