[lit-ideas] Re: Euthyphro
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 18:06:54 -0330
Try Kant's 2nd Critique on the distinction between conceptions of the good and
the form of moral law, and on the epistemic priority of the latter over the
former. Also see Habermas's *Moral consciousness and communicative action* and
"*Justice and application" for this same distinction. H gives things a
dialogical, discursive twist that has sent tidal waves across contemporary
moral, social and political philosophy. The basic question is whether morality
must be understood in formalist, cognitivist, deontological terms, or in
"aretaic" terms as developed by the Aristotelians (i.e., Taylor, MacIntyre,
Wellmer, Benhabib.) One claim is that Aristotle provides us with an "ethic",
but he has nothing to say about "morality" in Kantian terms. On that view,
those translations of Aristotle that translate "virtues of character" as "moral
virtues" erroneously (anachronistically) attribute to Aristotle the idea that
all human agents, simply in virtue of their rational autonomy, have obligations
to respect,and at times, promote the autonomy and dignity of others.
Supposedly, Aristotle never in his wildest nocturnal dreams ever approached
anything resembling that idea, or so the debate goes. We won't even mention
Richard Rorty, of course.
Walter C. Okshevsky
MUN
Quoting JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx:
> Are you familiar with a very dated (copyright 1957) book "Ethics", by A. C.
>
> Ewing? (It was still being used in University classes in the 1980's...) If
>
> so, what do you think about it? And what current books on the subject would
>
> you recommend? "Ethics" attempts to address the question of where a moral
> system or a system of ethics comes from or arises. When I was studying such
>
> things, when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, there was a very cut and dried
>
> distinction made between "ethics" and "morality". Is that still the case in
>
> current philo?
>
> Julie Krueger
> wishing I remembered everything I studied
>
> ========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: Euthyphro Date:
> 12/9/2006 2:59:58 P.M. Central Standard Time From: _rpaul@xxxxxxxxx
> (mailto:rpaul@xxxxxxxx) To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> Sent on:
> Eric:
>
> That's where Socrates demolishes the notion that "good" is fundamentally
> based
> in God (or the gods), nicht wahr?
>
> Not exactly. It's the one in which he asks whether something is pious
> (that's
> the Jowett translation) because it's loved by the gods or whether the
> gods love
> it because it's pious. If you substitute 'good' for 'pious' you might see
> one
> difficulty with the view that religion determines the right and the
> good, or at
> least a problem for those who think it does.
>
> Perseus doesn't have a Greek text of Euthyphro, although it does have
> an English
> one. (The text John McCreery cited has some spelling glitches and
> lacunae; maybe
> there's a slightly cleaner one somewhere.)
>
> Robert Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
