Advertisement

Human Values pp 102-126 | Cite as

The Polymorphy of Practical Reason

Chapter

Abstract

Natural law theory (NLT) offers an approach to normative ethics that is simple, distinctive, and persuasive. It posits a variety of different sorts of basic goods, things which are good in themselves rather than merely instrumentally good. These goods are the basis both of motivation and of justification: most if not all of our practical reasons arise from them, and to justify an action is to explain something about its relation to the goods. Our practical reasons are, irreducibly, polymorphous; and the source of that polymorphy is the variety of the goods.

Keywords

Practical Reason Practical Rationality Important Good Moral Assessment Lethal Injection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anscombe, G.E.M. (1957) Intention, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  2. Chappell, T.D.J. (1998) Understanding Human Goods, Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.Google Scholar
  3. Chappell, T.D.J. (2001a) ‘Option Ranges’, Journal ofApplied Philosophy 18: 107–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chappell, T.D.J. (2001b) ‘A Way Out of Pettit’s Dilemma’, Philosophical Quarterly 51: 95–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chappell, T.D.J. (2002) ‘Two Distinctions that Do Make a Difference: The Action/Omission Distinction and the Principle of Double Effect’, Philosophy 77: 211–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chappell, T.D.J. (2003) ‘Practical Rationality for Pluralists about the Good’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6: 161–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crisp, R. (2001) ‘Particularising Particularism’, in B. Hooker and M.O. Little (eds), Moral Particularism, Oxford: OUP, 23–47.Google Scholar
  8. Davidson, D. (1980) ‘How is Weakness of the Will Possible?’, in his Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 21–42.Google Scholar
  9. Finnis, J.M. (1977) ‘Scepticism, Self-Refutation, and the Good of Truth’, in P.M.S. Hacker and J. Raz (eds), Law, Morality, and Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Finnis, J. (1980) Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  11. Griffin, J. (1986) Well Being, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  12. Grisez, G. (1983) Christian Moral Principles, Quincy, Illinois: Franciscan Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grisez, G. (1993) Living a Christian Life, Quincy, Illinois: Franciscan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kamm, F. (2000) ‘The Doctrine of Triple Effect and Why a Rational Agent Need Not Intend the Means to His End’, Aristotelian Society Supp. 74: 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mackie, J.L. (1977) Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. McNaughton, D. and Rawling, P. (1992) ‘Honouring and Promoting Values’, Ethics 102: 835–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pettit, P. (1991) ‘Consequentialism’, in Peter Singer (ed.), A Companion to Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 230–40.Google Scholar
  18. Pollock, J. (1983) ‘How Do You Maximise Expectation Value?’, Nous 17: 409–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Railton, P. (1984) ‘Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 13: 134–71; reprinted in S. Scheffler (ed.), Consequentialism and its Critics, Oxford: OUP, 1988, 93–133.Google Scholar
  20. Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  21. Ross, D. (1930) The Right and the Good, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  22. Sorensen,R. (1994) ‘Infinite Decision Theory’, in Jeffrey Jordan (ed.), Gambling on God: Essays on Pascal’s Wager, Savage, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 139–59.Google Scholar
  23. Taurek, J.M. (1977) ‘Should the Numbers Count?’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 6: 293–316; reprinted in J.M. Fischer and M. Ravizza (eds), Ethics, New York: Harcourt, 1992, 214–27.Google Scholar
  24. Thomson, J.J. (1990) The Realm of Rights, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Timothy Chappell 2004

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations