Rationality and the Good
Critical Essays on the Ethics and Epistemology of Robert Audi
Timmons, Mark Philosophy Department, Arizona State University
Greco, John Philosophy Department, Fordham University
Mele, Alfred Philosophy Department, Florida State University
Print publication date: 2007 (this edition)
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2007
Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-531195-2
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311952.003.0005
 

Bernard Gert
This chapter compares two conceptions of morality, one championed by Aristotle, Ross, and Kant, the other championed by Hobbes and Mill. In The Good in the Right, Audi develops a version of the first tradition by using Kant as a foundation for Ross, and presents ten midlevel axioms that are intended as modifications of Ross's prima facie duties. In addition to being self-evident, Audi claims that these middle axioms are supported by various versions of Kant's categorical imperative. This chapter compares these ten midlevel axioms with the ten moral rules that it claims are the universally known rules of common morality. The point of this comparison is to show the great difference between the two conceptions of morality mentioned above. Gert defends the Hobbes-Mill conception.
Keywords: categorical imperative, Hobbes, Kant, Mill, morality, prima facie duties, Ross
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311952.003.0005
Quick Search Form
 
scroll up fast
scroll up
 
scroll down
scroll down fast
PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS FOR INTUITIONIST ETHICS
II KNOWLEDGE, JUSTIFICATION, AND ACCEPTANCE
INTENTION, SELF-DECEPTION, AND REASONS FOR ACTION
IV REASON AND INTUITION IN THOUGHT AND ACTION