Abstract
In the 1950s moral philosophy was generally supposed to have nothing whatever to contribute to actual moral or ethical debate. The task of philosophy was held to be the analysis of the language of morals, such words as “good”, “duty”, “ought” and “right” (or I suppose their opposites, though these did not get much of an innings). It was thought to be enough for philosophers to explain that such words were hidden imperatives, or were the expressions of feelings, so that people who used the words might know what they were doing in using them. For a philosopher to claim to know what to apply the words to, how to distinguish as ordinary people had to between what actually was right and wrong would have been intrusive. He had no more authority to do such a thing than a mathematician or indeed a bank-manager.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1992 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Warnock, M. (1992). Embryo Therapy: The Philosopher’s Role in Ethical Debate. In: Bromham, D.R., Dalton, M.E., Jackson, J.C., Millican, P.J.R. (eds) Ethics in Reproductive Medicine. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-1895-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-1895-4_3
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-1897-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-1895-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive