Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Philosophy Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Journal

Philosophic Exchange

Moral philosophy

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Philosophy

Mrs. Foot On The Sufficiency Of Hypothetical Imperatives, Lewis White Beck Jan 1971

Mrs. Foot On The Sufficiency Of Hypothetical Imperatives, Lewis White Beck

Philosophic Exchange

The issue between Mrs. Foot and Immanuel Kant is this: does the reason why one ought to do something always lie in expected, desired consequences, so that the command to do it is hypothetical? Mrs. Foot argues that the answer is “yes,” and that any alternative use of “ought” is unintelligible. I think that her argument for this claim is stronger when it is directed at the intuitionists than when it is directed at Kant. An analogy with logic, which is full of categorical imperatives, supports Kant’s position against Mrs. Foot.


In Defense Of The Hypothetical Imperative, Philippa Foot Jan 1971

In Defense Of The Hypothetical Imperative, Philippa Foot

Philosophic Exchange

Kant insisted that moral precepts must be categorical imperatives, telling the agent what he should do, no matter what his desires or interests. Kant contrasted these categorical imperatives with hypothetical imperatives, which operate only on the condition of certain desires or interests. I believe it is a mistake to think that Kant has disposed of the hypothetical imperative in morals. In this paper, I will consider the arguments that he has brought against it, and respond to them.


Foot-Notes, Joseph Gilbert Jan 1971

Foot-Notes, Joseph Gilbert

Philosophic Exchange

The major disagreement here is that Foot, contra Kant, denies that moral ends are ends that the agent has a duty to adopt. Though I, in part, agree with Foot, it is difficult to see what is paradoxical about the view that she denies. Foot’s position is the one that appears paradoxical. Her position is that I may have duties within morality, but I cannot have a duty to adopt the ends of morality. On the contrary, morality is inescapable.


Lear And Nature, Marshall Cohen Jan 1970

Lear And Nature, Marshall Cohen

Philosophic Exchange

Morris Weitz is mistaken in his interpretation of King Lear. The distinction between good and evil is maintained clearly and sharply throughout the play, and nature actually provides the key to the difference between the two.


Weitz On The Coinage Of Man, F. E. Sparshott Jan 1970

Weitz On The Coinage Of Man, F. E. Sparshott

Philosophic Exchange

The events in Shakespeare’s King Lear are not represented as typical, nor are the judgments made in the play represented as wise or reliable. This complicates any attempt to interpret the play as making the sorts of claims that Professor Weitz attributes to it.


The Coinage Of Man: King Lear And Camus’ Stranger, Morris Weitz Jan 1970

The Coinage Of Man: King Lear And Camus’ Stranger, Morris Weitz

Philosophic Exchange

In Shakespeare’s King Lear, the universe is indifferent to human values, but human values are of the utmost importance for human life. Good and evil are not built into the fabric of nature. Rather, they rest of human prerogative. However, this does not diminish the importance of human values for human life. The plot of King Lear charts Lear’s own progress through the many stages of this realization.