Journal of Value Inquiry 26 (4):511-524 (1992)

Authors
Bert Musschenga
VU University Amsterdam
Abstract
Does ethics have adequate general theories? Our analysis shows that this question does not have a straightforward answer since the key terms are ambiguous. So we should not concentrate on the answer but on the question itself. “Ethics” stands for many things, but we let that pass. “Adequate” may refer to varied arrays of methodological principles which are seldom fully articulated in ethics. “General” is a notion with at least three meanings. Different kinds of generality may be at cross-purposes, so we must not expect theories to be general in sundry senses. “Theory,” for that matter, is itself ambiguous. Some thinkers say that ethics cannot have theories, while others deny it. We doubt whether opposing parties are talking about the same things.No wonder, then, that controversies in ethics are long-lasting and unproductive. We hope that the methodology we have presented will alleviate some of them. The examples we chose show that this is feasible. Views such as Hare's and Jonsen and Toulmin's which are seemingly wide apart, show convergence if we put them in a methodological perspective.Our analysis also suggests that many alleged differences between science and ethics could fade away if methodology is brought to bear on them. Specifically, the idea that ethics compares poorly with science in view of limited generality, or poor means of justification, is unfounded. Those who defend this view over-rate the powers of science
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00138918
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Upload history
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

Laws and Natural History in Biology.Wim J. Der Steen & Harmke Kamminga - 1991 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (4).

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Specificity of the Generality Problem.Earl Conee - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (3):751-762.
Is the Generality Problem Too General?Michael Levin - 2002 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (1):87 - 97.
Mere Generality is Not Enough.Wim J. Steen & Peter B. Sloep - 1988 - Biology and Philosophy 3 (2):217-219.
Expressive Meaning in Music: Generality Versus Particularity.Krzysztof Guczalski - 2005 - British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (4):342-367.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
53 ( #175,971 of 2,333,957 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #44,826 of 2,333,957 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes