Archie Bahm argued recently that there is a gap between theoretical and applied ethics, and that those working in applied ethics must assume the burden of bridging it. Evidence of a gap is considerable, but it seems also partly due to much ethical theory having relatively little to offer to those grappling with practical moral problems. Some aspects of utilitarian theory are examined in this connection. Finally it is suggested that other areas of theory developing new models of (...) man may partly bridge the gap and aid those dealing with problems of moral decision-making. (shrink)

This book expounds the basic principles of Axiology as a major field of philosophical inquiry. Those principles can be discovered and demonstrated by scientific method. In treating scientific inquiry the book throws light on what values are and how they are known. It explores questions of Good and Bad, Ends and Means, and Appearance and Reality as applied to values. Axiology, argues the author, provides the basis for ethics as the science of oughtness: the power that a greater good has (...) over a lesser good in compelling our choices. The book concludes with a survey of efforts to establish Axiology as a science. (shrink)

Changes in American society have brought both increased concern for solving practical problems and decreased concern for whether foundational ethical theory can be, or needs to be, understood when solving them. A systematic study of newly established institutes of applied ethics reveals that the directors of all of them claim that ethical theory, or knowledge of the ultimate bases for moral appeals inherent in human nature, is not necessary for proposing solutions. Quotations from claims of directors of five prominent institutes (...) are cited as evidence for the thesis that teaching applied ethics without teaching theoretical foundations of ethics is the main line policy today. (shrink)

Description: Why Be Moral? is designed as a textbook for beginners. It is also intended for all concerned with understanding ethics. It emphasizes fundamental questions about the nature of: 1. Good and bad, right and wrong, rights and duties. 2. Oughtness, intention, responsibility, conscience. 3. Self, self-as-social, self-interest, extensions of self. 4. Groups, conflicts of interests, reciprocity, justice. It examines persisting issues: 1. Individual vs. social ethics. 2. Selfishness vs. altruism. 3. Intentions vs. consequences. 4. Codes vs. principles. 5. Freedom (...) vs. determinism. 6. Capitalism vs. socialism. Insights into problems in individual and in social ethics are enriched by comparative parallel treatment by chapters. (shrink)

The author rejects the main-line policy that business ethics can be taught better by ignoring theoretical foundations and the excuse that several alternative theories are available for appeal if one cares to consult them. He proposes recognizing enlightened self-interest as the theory already practiced by persons and groups, implicitly when not explicitly, and that frank recognition that it is presupposed will encourage more intelligent solutions because this will direct attention to needs for enlightenment of many kinds. Deliberate pursuit of enlightenment (...) — general, specific and particular — should result in greater achievement and, when achieved, in increased reliability of solutions. (shrink)

To think is to reduce. That is, to think is to abstract from the rich and variegated flux of experience certain apparent similarities and differences and to regard these as somehow significantly representative of the whole of experience. Controversies between schools of philosophy result largely from their selecting different parts of experience and emphasizing them as peculiarly, sometimes as exclusively, representative of what is regarded as necessary to the nature of existence. Whenever a school chooses to take some apparently universal (...) trait or traits of existence as experienced and to claim that such trait or traits alone are essential to its nature, it becomes reductionistic, not merely in the general sense that all thinking is reductionistic but in the additionally derogatory sense of misrepresenting the situation by unnecessarily omitting other equally essential traits. In a sense, all schools of philosophy, to the extent that they idealize one or more such traits as predominantly representative of existence, tend to be reductionistic. Those which further assert such as exclusively representative become extremely reductionistic. (shrink)

Another major event, still anticipated, and growing out of the first, is the expected publication of a new journal of comparative philosophy, Philosophy East and West, edited by Charles A. Moore, probably in April, 1951. Early plans called for a Board of Editors composed equally of Easterners and Westerners, with special editors for some countries, such as India, China, Japan, Ceylon. This project, which has many well-wishers, may prove to be one of the outstanding philosophical achievements of the century.

Comparative philosophy is a relatively new field of study, research, achievement in understanding and teaching. The purpose of this work is to help clarify the nature of comparative philosophy; to survey views about the kinds of standards that may be used as bases for comparisons; and the propose an hypothesis comparing pervasive traits of the philosophies of Western, Indian, and Chinese civilizations.