Who Holds the Moral High Ground?

Exeter: Imprint Academic (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Meta-ethical attempts to define concepts such as 'goodness', ‘right and wrong’, ‘ought’ and ‘ought not’, have proved largely futile, even over-ambitious. Morality, it is argued, should therefore be directed primarily at the reduction of suffering, principally because the latter is more easily recognisable and accords with an objective view and requirements of the human condition. All traditional and contemporary perspectives are without suitable criteria for evaluating moral dilemmas and without such guidance we face the potent threat of sliding to a destructive moral nihilism. This book presents a possible set of defining characteristics for the foundation of future moral evaluations and engagements, taking into consideration that the historically maligned female gender may be better disposed to ethical leadership.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Moral Relativism and Moral Nihilism.James Dreier - 2006 - In David Copp (ed.), The Oxford handbook of ethical theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Introduction.Matthew H. Kramer - 2009-04-10 - In Marcia Baron & Michael Slote (eds.), Moral Realism as a Moral Doctrine. Wiley‐Blackwell. pp. 1–22.
Better than our nature.Michael Vlerick - 2017 - Cambridge University Press.
Reduction vs. Elimination.Michael Slote - 1992 - In From morality to virtue. New York: Oxford University Press.
The Limits of Moral Authority.Dale Dorsey - 2016 - New York, NY: Oxford University Press UK.
The Smuggler's Fallacy.Kenneth G. Ferguson - 2004 - Metaphilosophy 35 (5):648-660.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-23

Downloads
1,603 (#9,548)

6 months
234 (#11,685)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Colin Beckley
Oxford Brookes University (PhD)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references