In defence of good simpliciter

被引:14
作者
Rowland, Richard [1 ]
机构
[1] La Trobe Univ, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
关键词
Goodness; Value; Good simpliciter; Final value; Attributive goodness; Judith Jarvis Thomson;
D O I
10.1007/s11098-015-0551-9
中图分类号
B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ;
摘要
Many including Judith Jarvis Thomson, Philippa Foot, Peter Geach, Richard Kraut, and Paul Ziff have argued for good simpliciter skepticism. According to good simpliciter skepticism, we should hold that there is no concept of being good simpliciter or that there is no property of being good simpliciter. I first show that prima facie we should not accept either form of good simpliciter skepticism. I then show that all of the arguments that good simpliciter skeptics have proposed for their view fail to show that we have good reason to accept good simpliciter skepticism. So, I show that we do not have good reason to accept good simpliciter skepticism.
引用
收藏
页码:1371 / 1391
页数:21
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1995, SELF OWNERSHIP FREED
  • [2] [Anonymous], PRINCIPIA ETHICA REV
  • [3] [Anonymous], SOVEREIGN VIRTUE
  • [4] Carter Ian., 1999, MEASURE FREEDOM
  • [5] Goodness and reasons: Accentuating the negative
    Crisp, Roger
    [J]. MIND, 2008, 117 (466) : 257 - 265
  • [6] Dancy J., 2004, Ethics Without Principles
  • [7] Finlay Stephen., 2014, CONFUSION TONGUES TH
  • [8] FOOT P, 1985, MIND, V94, P196
  • [9] Foot Philippa., 2001, NATURAL GOODNESS
  • [10] Geach PeterT., 1956, Analysis, V17, P33