more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
We have, it seems to me, currently no clear sense of the place and rationale of the distinction between doing and allowing in folk morality.
Gist of Idea
Folk morality does not clearly distinguish between doing and allowing
Source
Frank Jackson (From Metaphysics to Ethics [1998], Ch.5)
Book Ref
Jackson,Frank: 'From Metaphysics to Ethics' [OUP 2000], p.133
A Reaction
Does this mean that philosophers should endeavour to appear on television in order to improve folk morality, so that Jackson, back at the ranch, can then infer the meanings of moral terms from the new improved version?
| 20869 | The highest degree of morality performs all that is appropriate, omitting nothing [Chrysippus] |
| 7404 | Nations are not obliged to help one-another, but are obliged not to harm one another [Grotius, by Tuck] |
| 15824 | There are mere omissions (through ignorance, perhaps), and people can 'commit an omission' [Chisholm] |
| 4692 | It is not true that killing and allowing to die (or acts and omissions) are morally indistinguishable [Foot] |
| 4694 | Making a runaway tram kill one person instead of five is diverting a fatal sequence, not initiating one [Foot] |
| 6998 | Folk morality does not clearly distinguish between doing and allowing [Jackson] |
| 6479 | Noninterference requires justification as much as interference does [Nagel] |
| 4658 | Acts and Omissions: bad consequences are morally better if they result from an omission rather than an act [Glover] |
| 4659 | It doesn't seem worse to switch off a life-support machine than to forget to switch it on [Glover] |
| 4660 | Harmful omissions are unavoidable, while most harmful acts can be avoided [Glover] |
| 20881 | The act/omission distinction is important for duties, but less so for consequences [LaFollette] |
| 21136 | Utilitarians conflate acts and omissions; causing to drown and failing to save are the same [Shorten] |