‘Dirty Hands’: Guilt and Regret in Moral Reasoning

Nigel Biggar argues against ‘dirty hands’ reasoning for two reasons. The first is that dirty hands reasoning is paradoxical. The second is that ‘dirt’ in dirty hands is often—and wrongly—conceived as guilt. According to Biggar, the dirt should instead be understood as regret. In this article, I defe...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Gingles, Dallas J. (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Gargar...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publicado: Sage 2023
En: Studies in Christian ethics
Año: 2023, Volumen: 36, Número: 1, Páginas: 107-122
Clasificaciones IxTheo:NCB Ética individual
ZD Psicología
Otras palabras clave:B Regret
B Moral emotions
B Dirty Hands
B Guilt
B Nigel Biggar
B Moral Reasoning
Acceso en línea: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Descripción
Sumario:Nigel Biggar argues against ‘dirty hands’ reasoning for two reasons. The first is that dirty hands reasoning is paradoxical. The second is that ‘dirt’ in dirty hands is often—and wrongly—conceived as guilt. According to Biggar, the dirt should instead be understood as regret. In this article, I defend dirty hands reasoning against both criticisms. On the one hand, I argue that dirty hands reasoning is not necessarily paradoxical. On the other, I argue that, because guilt, more than regret, is meant to motivate the agent we should prefer a prima facie interpretation of the ‘dirt’ in dirty hands as guilt instead of regret.
ISSN:0953-9468
Obras secundarias:Enthalten in: Studies in Christian ethics
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1177/09539468221116300