Fields of Force: Murdoch on Axioms, Duties, and Eros (MGM Chapter 17)

  • Mark Hopwood


Iris Murdoch’s interpreters have often tried to read her as putting forward an alternative form of ethical foundationalism. On this reading, Murdoch is taken to be proposing ‘loving attention’ or ‘the Good’ as a fundamental moral principle that would play the same unifying role as the principle of utility or the categorical imperative. Here, I argue that a careful reading of chapter 17 of Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals shows that the foundationalist reading is untenable. Murdoch, I suggest, is better understood as a methodological descriptivist. She is not simply offering us an alternative moral theory, but a radically different approach to the business of moral philosophy itself.


  1. Antonaccio, M. 2000. Picturing the human: The moral thought of Iris Murdoch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, H. 2006. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. New York: Penguin Classics. Google Scholar
  3. Banicki, K. 2017. Iris Murdoch and the varieties of virtue ethics. In Varieties of virtue ethics, ed. David Carr, James Arthur, and Kristján Kristjánsson, 89–104. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer, T. 2011. The retrieval of ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, B. 2012. Iris Murdoch and the prospects for critical moral perception. In Iris Murdoch, philosopher, ed. Justin Broackes, 227–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Denham, A.E. 2001. Envisioning the Good: Iris Murdoch’s moral psychology. Modern Fiction Studies 47 (3): 602–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Driver, J. 2012. ‘For every foot its own shoe’: Method and moral theory in the philosophy of Iris Murdoch. In Iris Murdoch, philosopher, ed. Justin Broackes, 275–292. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hämäläinen, N. 2016. Descriptive ethics: What does moral philosophy know about morality? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Hämäläinen, N. 2018. Iris Murdoch and the descriptive aspect of moral philosophy. Iris Murdoch Review 9: 23–30.Google Scholar
  10. Hopwood, M. 2017. Murdoch, moral concepts, and the universalizability of moral reasons. Philosophical Papers 46 (2): 245–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hopwood, M. 2018. ‘The extremely difficult realization that something other than oneself is real’: Iris Murdoch on love and moral agency. European Journal of Philosophy 26 (1): 477–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jay, Martin. 1993. Force fields: Between intellectual history and cultural critique. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. McDowell, J. 1979. Virtue and reason. The Monist 62 (3): 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McDowell, J. 1995. Eudaimonism and realism in Aristotle’s Ethics. In Aristotle and moral realism, ed. Robert Heinaman, 201–218. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  15. Millgram, E. 2004. Kantian crystallization. Ethics 114 (3): 511–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Millgram, E. 2005. Murdoch, practical reasoning, and particularism. In Ethics done right: Practical reasoning as a foundation for moral theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Murdoch, I. 1993. Metaphysics as a guide to morals (Abbreviated MGM). New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  18. Murdoch, I. 1999. Existentialists and mystics: Writings on philosophy and literature. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  19. Nussbaum, M. 1999. Virtue ethics: A misleading category? Journal of Ethics 3 (3): 163–201.Google Scholar
  20. Nussbaum, M. 2000. Why practice needs ethical theory: Particularism, principle, and bad behavior. In Moral particularism, ed. Brad Hooker and Margaret Olivia Little, 227–255. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Robjant, D. 2011. As a Buddhist Christian: The misappropriation of Iris Murdoch. Heythrop Journal 52 (6): 993–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Velleman, J.D. 1999. Love as a moral emotion. Ethics 109 (2): 338–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zagzebski, L. 2017. Exemplarist moral theory. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Hopwood
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of the SouthSewaneeUSA

Personalised recommendations