18431
|
Internal relations combine some tropes into a nucleus, which bears the non-essential tropes [Simons, by Edwards]
|
|
Full Idea:
Simons's 'nuclear' option blends features of the substratum and bundle theories. First we have tropes collected by virtue of their internal relations, forming the essential kernel or nucleus. This nucleus then bears the non-essential tropes.
|
|
From:
report of Peter Simons (Particulars in Particular Clothing [1994], p.567) by Douglas Edwards - Properties 3.5
|
|
A reaction:
[compression of Edwards's summary] This strikes me as being a remarkably good theory. I am not sure of the ontological status of properties, such that they can (unaided) combine to make part of an object. What binds the non-essentials?
|
23674
|
If an attempted poisoning results in benefits, we still judge the agent a poisoner [Reid]
|
|
Full Idea:
If a man should give to his neighbour a potion which he really believes will poison him, but which, in the event, proves salutary, and does much good; in moral estimation, he is a poisoner, and not a benefactor.
|
|
From:
Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 3: Princs of action [1788], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
I take Reid to mean that morality concerns how we assess the agent, and not the results of his actions. Mill and Bentham concede that we judge people this way, but don't think morality mainly concerns judging people.
|
23673
|
Every worthy man has a principle of honour, and knows what is honourable [Reid]
|
|
Full Idea:
I presume it will be granted, that, in every man of real worth, there is a principle of honour, a regard to what is honourable or dishonourable, very distinct from a regard to his interest.
|
|
From:
Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 3: Princs of action [1788], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
Note that there is a 'principle' of honour in a person's character, and there are also actions which are intrinsically honourable or not. I fear that only the worthy are honourable, and only the honourable are worthy!
|