Towards Reunion in Ethics

Springer Verlag (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This posthumous publication attempts to answer the question of what moral code is the most reasonable. Philosophers often turn to consequentialism or deontological ethics to address this issue. As the author points out, each has valid arguments but each is unable to get the other side to agree. To rectify this, he proposes a third way. Inside, readers will discover a theory that tries to do justice to both sides. The author first details consequentialism and deontological ethics. He also explains their fundamental conflict. One holds the view that you should do what has the best consequences. The other believes that there are actions which are wrong to do even if they have the best consequences. Next, the volume considers various ways to solve this conflict. Would rejecting one theory work? Or, is it possible to somehow reconcile them. The author shows why these solutions fail. He then goes on to present his own. The resulting contractual theory brings together the two opposing ethical convictions. It proposes that what is right and wrong depends on what norms people would agree to. Throughout, coverage explores the psychological, sociological, and historical background of the moral theories discussed. The reason is that moral theories are embedded in social and psychological contexts. They are better understood when the contexts are explicit. This key feature distinguishes the volume from other works in moral philosophy. At the time of his death in July 2011, Jan Österberg was close to completing this manuscript. It was taken up and fully completed by Erik Carlson and Ryszard Sliwinski, both of Uppsala University.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Chapters

My Solution

The aim of this work is to find out which is the acceptable moral code, that is, the social morality we all should adopt . In earlier chapters I have scrutinized the proposals made by the most plausible candidates, viz. consequentialism and deontological ethics . I have argued that neither proposal ... see more

Possible Solutions

The fundamental conflict in normative ethics, I have argued, is that between consequentialism and deontological ethics . Not only is the conflict fundamental, it is also very recalcitrant against attempts to solve, or dissolve, it. This is mirrored by the fact that there are few people who are prepa... see more

Consequentialism: Assessment

Consequentialism is probably the most discussed of all philosophical moral theories. There are two main reasons for this. On the one hand, its core idea—that you should maximize the good and minimize the bad—has a very strong intuitive appeal. For, as Samuel Scheffler formulates it:On the other hand... see more

Consequentialism: Exposition

The topic of this and the next chapter is C. In this chapter I will first discuss and assess some of the different alternative forms that C can take. The aim is to come up with a version that will best meet certain objections raised against the theory, objections that will be discussed in the next c... see more

Deontological Ethics: Assessment

In Chap. 10.1007/978-3-030-12410-6_1, I claimed that CSM is the archetype and source of D. In Chap. 10.1007/978-3-030-12410-6_2, I tried to characterize and explain this central version of D, especially what I called its “deontological features”; I also tried to identify the core of CSM, which I bap... see more

Deontological Ethics: Exposition

The topic of this and the following chapter is deontological ethics . This chapter is concerned with characterizing it, and the next with assessing it. More specifically, in this chapter I argue that the different deontological theories take their point of departure from common-sense morality and ar... see more

The Conflict

A fundamental, not to say the fundamental, conflict in normative ethics is the conflict between consequentialism and deontological ethics , that is, between the view that you should do what has the best consequences and the view that there are actions which, for certain stated reasons, it is wrong t... see more

Similar books and articles

G. W. Leibniz's Theory of Rational Decision-Making and the Reunion of the Churches.Markku Roinila - 2001 - In Hans Poser, Christoph Asmuth, Ursula Goldenbaum & Wenchao Li (eds.), Nihil sine ratione. Mensch, Natur un Technik im Wirken von G. W. Leibniz. G. W. Leibniz Geschellschaft. pp. 1069-1076.
Corporatism.Michael Martin - 1986 - Philosophia 16 (3-4):275-291.
Reunion.D. Macfadyen - 1906 - Hibbert Journal 5:42.
Reunion Des etudiants.[author unknown] - 1931 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 5 (1):39-40.
Réunion Des étudiants.[author unknown] - 1931 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 5 (2):67-71.
Reunion.Hamilton Baynes - 1918 - Hibbert Journal 17:440.
Rapport de la 15e réunion du Bureau de la S.I.E.P.M.J. Benda - 1965 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 7:177.
Reunion-The Present Situation.R. B. Tollington - 1928 - Hibbert Journal 27:438.
Reunion and Nonconformity.Vincent Taylor - 1930 - Hibbert Journal 29:595.
Toward Reunion in Philosophy.L. Jonathan Cohen - 1958 - Philosophical Quarterly 8 (30):93-95.
The Basis of Reunion.Walter W. Seton - 1918 - Hibbert Journal 17:64.
La réunion invisible.Michel Gheude - 1994 - Hermes 13:275.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-05-22

Downloads
4 (#1,595,600)

6 months
3 (#992,474)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references