In this paper, I attempt to recover an 18th Century approach to moral theory that can be called Moral Taste Theory. Through an exploration of 18th Century sources I define the characteristics of moral taste theory and to distinguish it from its closest rival, moral sense theory. In general a moral taste theorist holds that moral judgments are analogous to aesthetic judgments while a moral sense theorist holds that moral judgments are analogous to physical sense perception. Francis Hutcheson was a (...) paradigmatic moral sense theorist, but I argue that David Hume is best understood as a moral taste theorist. If we do not understand the concept of moral taste, we cannot understand 18th Century moral philosophy, and, more importantly, we will miss out on an important source of inspiration for 21st Century moral philosophy. (shrink)

The problem of evil is not only a logical problem about God's goodness but also an existential problem about the sense of God's presence, which the Biblical book of Job conceives as a problem of aesthetic experience. Thus, just as theism can be grounded in religious experience, atheism can be grounded in experience of evil. This phenomenon is illustrated by two contrasting literary descriptions of aesthetic experience by Jean-Paul Sartre and Annie Dillard. I illuminate both of these literary texts with (...) a discussion of the 18th Century philosopher Lord Shaftesbury's concept of ‘enthusiasm’. (shrink)

Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713) was an English philosopher who profoundly influenced 18th century thought in Britain, France, and Germany, particularly in the areas of aesthetics, ethics, and religion.

This article analyzes the way the films of Belgian writer-directors Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne portray characters taking responsibility for children and children allowing others to take responsibility for them. Though the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas provides a starting point, this article focuses primarily on a close reading of the Dardennes' films themselves. It argues that these films illuminate the nature of parenthood and suggest a unified definition of parenthood that encompasses both biological parenthood and adoption. In both cases a parent (...) is one who has acquired a unique responsibility toward a child grounded in the vulnerability of the child. (shrink)