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