[lit-ideas] Re: SOS or Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self

  • From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 00:15:04 -0700

I quoted Taylor

"Much contemporary moral philosophy, particularly but not only in the
English-speaking world, has given such a narrow focus to morality that
some of the crucial connections I want to consider here are
incomprehensible in its terms. This moral philosophy has tended to
focus on what it is right to do rather than on what it is good to be,
on defining the content of obligation rather than the nature of the
good life; and it has no conceptual place left for the notion of the
good as the object of our love or allegiance or, as Iris Murdoch
portrayed it in her work, as the privileged focus of attention or
will.”

and responded that it might look like that if one hadn't read any for
a long time. I called this characterization of 'contemporary' moral philosophy' an Aunt Sally of dubious origin. A comment on my comment:
one could, of course, sort through the journals from the mid-1950s to the present and find moral philosophy being done with such a narrow focus. Philosophy often ends up in a frenzy of counter-examples to counter-examples, ad (almost) inf; but if one is going to create out of this a respectable opposition one should warn one's readers that it is not the whole story by any means.


Taylor invokes Murdoch. I'd meant to go off topic a bit and suggest that Martha Nussbaum does an excellent job of presenting Murdoch's strengths and weaknesses as a moral philosopher/novelist in her review of Peter Conrad's book on Murdoch.

See if http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011231&s=nussbaum123101 works for you.

Robert Paul
Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
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: