The Moral ArgumentPub Date : 2019-12-26DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0009
H. Rashdall
{"title":"The Theo-Philosopher of Carlisle","authors":"H. Rashdall","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0009","url":null,"abstract":"Hastings Rashdall critiqued Henry Sidgwick’s inability to see that rational benevolence has primacy over rational self-love, so while recognizing the dualism of practical reason, Rashdall underscored the strength of at least certain versions of theism to account for the priority of benevolence and altruism. As both a moral apologist and kind of utilitarian, Rashdall also demonstrated that agreement on normative ethical matters is not a prerequisite for proponents of the moral argument. What’s needed more centrally is an essential dependence relation of morality on God, not agreement on the peripheral matter of fine-grained normative analysis. Rashdall argued that a generous empiricism won’t domesticate morality but will instead insist on allowing the deliverances of morality, the binding nature of the moral law, and the transcendent implications and aspirations of the moral good to inform his metaphysics. Like others, he thought the moral argument works best when combined with other pieces of natural theology.","PeriodicalId":161709,"journal":{"name":"The Moral Argument","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130865685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Moral ArgumentPub Date : 2019-12-26DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0015
H. P. Owen
{"title":"A Reverend Don","authors":"H. P. Owen","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0015","url":null,"abstract":"H. P. Owen was a wonderfully systematic thinker, and his work is a joy to read. He was also a student of history; his moral argument is couched in what to this day remains one of the better cursory sketches of the history of the moral argument. On the shoulders of Newman, Sorley, Taylor, and others, Owen constructed an intelligent moral argument. Distinguishing between self-evidence and self-explanation, he argued that various moral phenomena, though they fall into the former category, don’t fall into the latter. In discussing the deliverances of morality and delineating their salient features, he patiently demonstrated their theistic implications, without pretending to have offered anything in the vicinity of a logical proof or demonstration. Significantly, he extended his case not just to theism generally but to Christianity particularly.","PeriodicalId":161709,"journal":{"name":"The Moral Argument","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122288197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Moral ArgumentPub Date : 2019-12-26DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0002
David J. Baggett, J. Walls
{"title":"Precursors to Kant","authors":"David J. Baggett, J. Walls","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Although Kant is often thought of as the first significant moral apologist, hints and intimations of the moral argument can be found before him. Plato’s conception of the Good has been thought congenial to a theistic conception, and Aristotle’s robust teleological conception of reality and sturdy commitment to final causes resounded with much of the later Judeo-Christian tradition. Augustine and Aquinas, in particular, were committed religious believers and thinkers who forged clear connections between their theism and key moral ideas found among such Greek thinkers as Plato and Aristotle. The contemporary Frenchmen René Descartes and Blaise Pascal both saw the relevance of the afterlife to fundamental questions of the moral quest. John Locke and Thomas Reid were both drawn to an early version of the “coincidence thesis,” according to which well-being and virtue go together. In all of these ways the stage was set for Kant’s landmark work.","PeriodicalId":161709,"journal":{"name":"The Moral Argument","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125662064","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Moral ArgumentPub Date : 2019-10-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0017
David J. Baggett, J. Walls
{"title":"Conclusion","authors":"David J. Baggett, J. Walls","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0017","url":null,"abstract":"This book considered commendable traits of historical moral apologists: how they lived with the argument, did important work in the midst of tragic circumstances, irenically engaged interlocutors, honestly contended with the problem of evil, exhibited epistemic humility, diligently cultivated intellectual rigor, and patiently and painstakingly investigated evidence. It also chronicled the expansive epistemology, wide empiricism, and broad theories of rationality so often on display in the history of moral apologetics, which carved out important room for morality to shape one’s view of metaphysics. The role of moral faith was underscored—involving confidence that the moral law can be satisfied and that adherence to it conduces to deep joy. It also accentuated the political implications of the moral argument and how it can be deployed to argue for more than generic theism. Finally, it argued that a study of this history can elevate the level of contemporary discourse on the topic.","PeriodicalId":161709,"journal":{"name":"The Moral Argument","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126818095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Moral ArgumentPub Date : 2019-10-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0008
A. S. Pringle-Pattison
{"title":"An Edinburgher","authors":"A. S. Pringle-Pattison","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190246365.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison touched a number of chords similar to those of other notable moral apologists, while distinguishing himself in a few salient respects. He lauded Kant on the issue of value, tracing that line of argument to focus on the principled reason to side with Kant over Hume on the problem of evil, while being critical of Kant in other respects, particularly in paying God’s immanence inadequate attention. He saw clearly various implications of the moral argument for the character of God, not just on the matter of God’s existence, and he intentionally launched criticisms at David Hume’s narrow empiricism. Pringle-Pattison’s idealism was broad, his epistemology expansive, his empiricism generous. He took religious experience seriously, refusing to privilege the perspective of external bystanders who lacked its rich phenomenology.","PeriodicalId":161709,"journal":{"name":"The Moral Argument","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132088341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Dinosaur","authors":"C. S. Lewis","doi":"10.2307/j.ctt9qh6q1.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qh6q1.20","url":null,"abstract":"Probably the most famous moral argument in Western philosophy is the popular version C. S. Lewis developed in Mere Christianity. Lewis starts with the common-sense observation that we make moral judgments about right and wrong that we take to be objectively true. This suggests a reality beyond and behind the moral law that Lewis goes on to argue is like a mind, which points ultimately to a theistic explanation. Around the same time Lewis articulated this argument, he spelled out another version for a more academic audience based on the claim that if we are to have morality at all, we must take our basic moral judgments as self-evidently true. Lewis also developed other variations of the moral argument in his essays “The Poison of Subjectivism” and “De Futilitate,” the latter of which argues that our condemnation of cruelty and indifference gives us the substance for a moral argument.","PeriodicalId":161709,"journal":{"name":"The Moral Argument","volume":"195 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121886312","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：