Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((PHME,volume 34))

Abstract

A common theme runs through this entire paper, and that is the phenomenon of moral disagreement. I say “phenomenon” in order not to commit myself in advance to any view about whether or when moral disagreement is genuine or merely apparent: indeed, as will appear, whether genuine moral disagreement is even possible is one of the most important issues at stake. But even those who concede that genuine moral disagreements are possible have different views about the precise nature of the disagreements that there are, and about the best way of trying to resolve them. The various “pluralisms” in morality derive, I think, from the variety of analyses given of the phenomenon of moral disagreement. I believe that these different pluralisms raise very different issues which ought to be kept separate. I shall be arguing that in three, but not in all, senses of “pluralism” a pluralist position in morals is preferable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Aristotle: 1955, Metaphysics, trans. W. D. Ross, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Duff, R. A.: 1982, ‘Intention, Responsibility and Double Effect’, Philosophical Quarterly 32, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Grandy, R.: 1973, ‘Reference, Meaning and Belief’, Journal of Philosophy 70, 439–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hallett, G., Hallett, S. J.: 1983, Christian Moral Reasoning, Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Horton, R.: 1982, ‘Tradition and Modernity Revisited’, in M. Hollis and S. Lukes (eds.), Rationality and Relativism, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 201–260.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hughes, G. J., S. J.: 1980, Authority in Morals, Search Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lukes, S.: 1982, ‘Relativism in its Place’, in M. Hollis and S. Lukes (eds.), Rationality and Relativism, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 261–305.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rahner, K.: 1974, ‘Pluralism in Theology and the Unity of the Creed in the Church’ and ‘Reflections on the Problems Involved in Devising a Short Formula of the Faith’, in K. Rahner, Theological Investigations, XI, Darton, Longman and Todd, London, pp. 11–23 and pp. 230–246.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hughes, G.J. (1989). Is Ethics One or Many?. In: Pellegrino, E.D., Langan, J.P., Harvey, J.C. (eds) Catholic Perspectives on Medical Morals. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 34. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2538-0_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2538-0_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7647-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2538-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics