No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
After the Deluge: criticism as reconstruction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
Extract
Morality today is clearly in a mess. The word ‘moral’ has lost almost all its bearings: it simply flies about loose in the machinery of our discourse. For example, in my own college, philosophy students are always asked the following question:
Jones has agreed with Smith to paint Smith’s house for the price of £1,000. Both agree that Jones has now done the work to a satisfactory standard.
— Does it therefore follow that Smith now owes Jones £1,000?
— Does it therefore follow that Smith now ought to pay Jones
£1,000?
Students almost invariably agree that Smith now owes Jones the money, but when it comes to the question whether he ought to pay him, they begin to wobble. This is a ‘moral’ question, they say, as if this makes the answer uncertain. Given that we are in this kind of muddle about morality, perhaps it would be better to get rid of the word ‘moral’ altogether, as Elizabeth Anscombe said in her memorable paper ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1988 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers
References
Note: This is a slightly revised version of a paper written in 1987 for a conference, organised by the Centre for the Study of Individual and Social Values at the University of Leicester, which did not in fact take place.
A note by the Editor:
The exchange between Professor Michael Dummett and Professor Nicholas Lash which we published in our October and December issues (pp. 424–431; 552–566) has attracted quite a lot of attention in the press. Is a ‘liberal consensus’, supposedly adopted by a large number of theologians and seminary teachers, undermining the unity of the Roman Catholic Church? This is what they were arguing about. We promised to print some contributions on questions raised in the debate. Here are two, by Timothy Radcliffe and Joseph Fitzpatrick.