Possible Thomistic Response to Hume’s Law and to Moore’s Open-Question Argument
This article concerns Aquinas's practical doctrine on two philosophical difficulties underlying much contemporary ethical debate. One is Hume's Is-ought thesis and the other is its radical consequence, Moore’s Open-question argument. These ethical paradoxes appear to have their roots in ep...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Philosophy Documentation Center
2020
|
| In: |
Philosophy & theology
Year: 2020, Volume: 32, Issue: 1/2, Pages: 173-191 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274
/ Moore, George Edward 1873-1958, Principia ethica
/ Is–ought problem
|
| IxTheo Classification: | KAE Church history 900-1300; high Middle Ages NCA Ethics TJ Modern history VA Philosophy |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | This article concerns Aquinas's practical doctrine on two philosophical difficulties underlying much contemporary ethical debate. One is Hume's Is-ought thesis and the other is its radical consequence, Moore’s Open-question argument. These ethical paradoxes appear to have their roots in epistemological scepticism and in a deficient anthropology. Possible response to them can be found in that Aquinas’s human intellect (essentially theoretical and practical at the same time) naturally performs three main operations: 1º) To apprehend the intellecta and universal notions ens, verum and bonum. 2º) To formulate the first theoretical and practical principles. 3º) To order that the intellectum and universal good be done and the opposite avoided. Thomistic philosophical response to both predicaments will not be exclusively ethical, but will harmonically embrace ontology, anthropology and epistemology. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2153-828X |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Philosophy & theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.5840/philtheol20201210131 |