Combining Texts

Ideas for 'The Bhagavad Gita', 'Utilitarianism and the Virtues' and '67: Platonic Questions'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


5 ideas

22. Metaethics / A. Ethics Foundations / 2. Source of Ethics / e. Human nature
Hate and lust have their roots in man's lower nature [Anon (Bhag)]
     Full Idea: Hate and lust for things of nature have their roots in man's lower nature.
     From: Anon (Bhag) (The Bhagavad Gita [c.500 BCE], 3.34)
     A reaction: It seems outmoded now (since Freud) to label parts of human nature as 'higher' and 'lower'. I would defend the distinction, but it is not self-evident. The basis of morality is good citizenship, and parts of our nature are detrimental to that.
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 1. Goodness / g. Consequentialism
Consequentialists can hurt the innocent in order to prevent further wickedness [Foot]
     Full Idea: For consequentialists there will be nothing that it will not be right to do to a perfectly innocent individual, if that is the only way of preventing another agent from doing more things of the same kind.
     From: Philippa Foot (Utilitarianism and the Virtues [1985], p.61)
     A reaction: This is her generalised version that Williams dramatised as Jim and the Indians. Roughly, if you achieve a good outcome, it matters little how it is achieved. Foot sees consequentialism as the main problem with utilitarianism.
Why might we think that a state of affairs can be morally good or bad? [Foot]
     Full Idea: We should ask why we think that it makes sense to talk about morally good and bad states of affairs.
     From: Philippa Foot (Utilitarianism and the Virtues [1985], p.68)
     A reaction: This is the key question in her attack on consequentialism. There is nothing 'morally' good about my football team winning a great victory.
Good outcomes are not external guides to morality, but a part of virtuous actions [Foot]
     Full Idea: It is not that maximum welfare or 'the best outcome' stands outside morality as it foundation and arbiter, but rather that it appears within morality as the end of one of the virtues.
     From: Philippa Foot (Utilitarianism and the Virtues [1985], p.73)
     A reaction: She cites justice and benevolence as aiming at different (and even conflicting) outcomes. I'm not sure about her distinction between 'outside' and 'within' morality. I suppose a virtuously created end is a moral end, unlike mere good states of affairs.
The idea of a good state of affairs has no role in the thought of Aristotle, Rawls or Scanlon [Foot]
     Full Idea: The idea of the goodness of total states of affairs played no part in Aristotle's moral philosophy, and in modern times plays not part either in Rawls's account of justice or in the theories of more thoroughgoing contractualists such as Scanlon.
     From: Philippa Foot (Utilitarianism and the Virtues [1985], p.76)
     A reaction: We can add Kant to that. But if the supremely good state of affairs were permanently achieved, would that make morality irrelevant? A community of the exceptionally virtuous would not need the veil of ignorance, or contracts.