The fundamental divisions in ethics

Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 68 (2):318-341 (2025)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

What are the fundamental divisions in ethics? Which divisions capture the most important and basic options in moral theorizing? In this article, I reject the ‘Textbook View’ which takes the tripartite division between consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics to be fundamental. Instead, I suggest that moral theories are fundamentally divided into three independent divisions, which I call the neutral/relative division, the normative priority division, and the maximizing division. I argue that this account of the fundamental divisions of ethics better captures the main concerns that normative ethicists have when assessing moral theories. It also helps us make progress in comparative ethics and makes visible theoretical possibilities obscured by the Textbook View.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,297

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Fundamental Divisions in Ethics.Matthew Hammerton - 2025 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 68 (2):318-341.
The Scope of Moral Philosophy (Ethics-1, M02).Shyam Ranganathan - 2016 - In A. Raghuramaraju (ed.), Philosophy, E-Pg Pathshala. Delhi: India, Department of Higher Education (NMEICT).
Virtue Ethics and Environs.James Griffin - 1998 - Social Philosophy and Policy 15 (1):56.
Does virtue ethics allow us to make better judgments of the actions of others?Liezl van Zyl - 2019 - In Elisa Grimi, John Haldane, Maria Margarita Mauri Alvarez, Michael Wladika, Marco Damonte, Michael Slote, Randall Curren, Christian B. Miller, Liezl Zyl, Christopher D. Owens, Scott J. Roniger, Michele Mangini, Nancy Snow & Christopher Toner (eds.), Virtue Ethics: Retrospect and Prospect. Springer.
Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics, and Consequentialism.Jane Singleton - 2002 - Journal of Philosophical Research 27:537-551.
In defense of deontology and Kant: A reply to Van staveren.Mark D. White - 2009 - Review of Political Economy 21 (2):315-323.
Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics, and Consequentialism.Jane Singleton - 2002 - Journal of Philosophical Research 27:537-551.

Analytics

Added to PP
2025-01-17

Downloads
3 (#1,853,583)

6 months
3 (#1,480,774)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Matthew Hammerton
Singapore Management University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Why We Should Reject S.Derek Parfit - 1984 - In Reasons and Persons. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
The View from Nowhere.Thomas Nagel - 1986 - Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 92 (2):280-281.
Ought, Agents, and Actions.Mark Schroeder - 2011 - Philosophical Review 120 (1):1-41.

View all 48 references / Add more references