G. E. Moore and theory of moral/right action in ethics of social consequences

Open access

Abstract

G. E. Moore’s critical analysis of right action in utilitarian ethics and his consequentialist concept of right action is a starting point for a theory of moral/right action in ethics of social consequences. The terms right and wrong have different meanings in these theories. The author explores different aspects of right and wrong actions in ethics of social consequences and compares them with Moore’s ideas. He positively evaluates Moore’s contributions to the development his theory of moral/right action.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • DOMAGAŁA J. (2015): Vasil Gluchman’s ethics of social consequences and the professional ethics of a Polish Police Officer. In: Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) 5(1–2) pp. 115–119.

  • DUBIEL-ZIELIŃSKA P. (2013): “Ethics of social consequences” and “Ethics of Development” as Theories belonging to Stream of Ethics of Act. In: Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) 3(3–4) pp. 173–188.

  • DUBIEL-ZIELIŃSKA P. (2015): Consequentialist and non-consequentialist overtones of the Code of ethics of an academic staff member in light of ethics of social consequences. In: Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) 5(1–2) pp. 105–113.

  • DUBIEL-ZIELIŃSKA P. (2016): Moral dilemmas in professions of public trust and the assumptions of ethics of social consequences. In: Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) 6(1–2) pp. 19–32.

  • GLUCHMAN V. (2000): Utilitarizmus G. E. Moora [G. E. Moore’s utilitarianism]. In: G. E. Moore: Etika [Ethics] trans. and ed. by V. Gluchman & M. Gluchmanová. Prešov: LIM pp. 9–23.

  • GLUCHMAN V. (2001): Teória správneho v etike sociálnych dôsledkov [Theory of right in ethics of social consequences]. In: Filosofický časopis 49(4) pp. 633–654.

  • GLUCHMAN V. (2003): Human being and morality in ethics of social consequences. Lewiston NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

  • GLUCHMAN V. (2007): Human dignity and non-utilitarian consequentialist “Ethics of social consequences”. In: H. Tepe & S. Voss (eds.): The proceedings of the twenty-first world congress of philosophy vol. 1 Ethics. Ankara: Philosophical Society of Turkey pp. 159–165.

  • GLUCHMAN V. (2009): Dignity and human dignity as methodological basis of bioethics. In: V. Gluchman (ed.): Bioethics in Central Europe: Methodology and Education. Prešov: FF PU pp. 73–86.

  • GLUCHMAN V. (2012): Ethics of social consequences – methodology of bioethics education. In: Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) 2(1–2) pp. 16–27.

  • GLUCHMAN V. (2016): Disaster issues in non-utilitarian consequentialism. In: Human Affairs 26(1) pp. 52–62.

  • GLUCHMAN V. (2017): Nature of dignity and human dignity. In: Human Affairs 27(2) pp. 131–144.

  • GLUCHMANOVÁ M. (2013): The Teacher as a Moral Agent: Humanity and Human Dignity in the Teaching Profession. In: V. Gluchman (ed.): Morality: Reasoning on Different Approaches. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi pp. 141–160.

  • GRZYBEK G. (2011): Etika sociálnych dôsledkov a etika vývoja [Ethics of social consequences and development ethics]. In: V. Gluchman et al.: Hodnoty v etike sociálnych dôsledkov [Values in ethics of social consequences]. Prešov: Grafotlač pp. 186–190.

  • JACKSON F. (1991): Decision-Theoretic Consequentialism and the Nearest and Dearest Objection. In: Ethics 101(3) pp. 461–482.

  • JEMELKA P. (2017): Ethics of social consequences and its bioethical aspects as reflected in potential criticism. In: V. Gluchman (ed.): 16th International Conference on “Ethical Thinking – Past & Present” (ETPP 2016/16). Prešov: FF PU pp. 109–119.

  • KALAJTZIDIS J. (2011): Problematika mravných subjektov v etike sociálnych dôsledkov [Moral agents’ issues in ethics of social consequences]. In: V. Gluchman et al.: Hodnoty v etike sociálnych dôsledkov [Values in ethics of social consequences]. Prešov: Grafotlač pp. 86–121.

  • KALAJTZIDIS J. (2012): Etika sociálnych dôsledkov a hospodárska etika (so zameraním na finančný sektor) [Ethics of social consequences and business ethics]. Brno: Tribun EU.

  • KALAJTZIDIS J. (2013): Ethics of social consequences as a contemporary consequentialist theory. In: Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) 3(3–4) pp. 159–171.

  • KIŠŠ I. (2011): Zápas o morálne hodnoty vo filozofickej etike Vasila Gluchmana [Struggle for moral values in Vasil Gluchman’s philosophical ethics]. In: V. Gluchman et al.: Hodnoty v etike sociálnych dôsledkov [Values in ethics of social consequences]. Prešov: Grafotlač pp. 9–23.

  • KOMENSKÁ K. (2016): Bioetické reflexie pohrôm a katastrof – nové výzvy pre súčasnú etiku [Bioethical reflection of disasters and catastrophes – new challenges for contemporary ethics]. In: Filosofický časopis 64(5) pp. 773–782.

  • KUŘE J. (2011): Subjektivní a objektivní moment v etice sociálních důsledků [Subjective and objective aspect in ethics of social consequences]. In: V. Gluchman et al.: Hodnoty v etike sociálnych dôsledkov [Values in ethics of social consequences]. Prešov: Grafotlač pp. 24–36.

  • MISSERI L. (2014): Gluchman y su ética socio-consecuencialista. In: V. Gluchman: Dignidad y consecuencias: ensayos de una ética socio-consecuencialista 1a ed. Mar del Plata: Kazak Ediciones pp. 5–17.

  • MOORE G. E. (2000): Principia Ethica ed. by T. Baldwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • MOORE G. E. (2005): Ethics ed. by W. H. Shaw. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • MÜNZ T. (2002): Etika sociálnych dôsledkov Vasila Gluchmana [Vasil Gluchman’s ethics of social consequences]. In: Filozofia 52(2) pp. 276–283.

  • NAVRÁTILOVÁ D. (2011): Limity etiky sociálnych dôsledkov v kontexte súčasného etického myslenia [Limits of ethics of social consequences in context of contemporary ethical thinking]. In: V. Gluchman et al.: Hodnoty v etike sociálnych dôsledkov [Values in ethics of social consequences]. Prešov: Grafotlač pp. 37–45.

  • PETTIT P. (1988): The Consequentialist Can Recognise Rights. In: The Philosophical Quarterly 38(150) pp. 42–55.

  • PETTIT P. (1989): Consequentialism and Respect for Persons. In: Ethics 100(1) pp. 116–126.

  • PETTIT P. (1991): Consequentialism. In: P. Singer (ed.): A Companion to Ethics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell pp. 230–240.

  • PETTIT P. (1994): Consequentialism and Moral Psychology. In: International Journal of Philosophical Studies 2(1) pp. 1–17.

  • PETTIT P. (1997): The Consequentialist Perspective. In: M. Baron P. Pettit & M. Slote: Three Methods of Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell pp. 92–174.

  • PERSSON I. (2008): A Consequentialist Distinction between What We Ought to Do and Ought to Try. In: Utilitas 20(3) pp. 348–355.

  • SACHDEV K. N. (2015): Normative analysis of human dignity among professionals. In: Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) 5(3–4) pp. 205–210.

  • SEN A. (1982): Rights and Agency. In: Philosophy & Public Affairs 11(1) pp. 3–39.

  • SEN A. (1983): Evaluator Relativity and Consequential Evaluation. In: Philosophy & Public Affairs 12(2) pp. 113–132.

  • SEN A. (1993): Utilitarianism and Welfarism. In: P. Pettit (ed.): Consequentialism. Aldershot & Brookfield: Dartmount pp. 15–41.

  • SIMUT C. C. (2011): Essentials of Catholic Radicalism: An Introduction to the Lay Theology of Vito Mancuso. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

  • SIMUT C. C. (2016): Staying young today: Vito Mancuso’s Hegelian theology through the lens of Vasil Gluchman’s ethics of social consequences. In: Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) 6(1–2) pp. 5–17.

  • SLOTE M. (1985): Common-Sense Morality and Consequentialism. London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  • SLOTE M. (1989): Beyond Optimizing: A Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge MA & London: Harvard University Press.

  • SLOTE M. (1993): Satisficing Consequentialism. In: P. Pettit (ed.): Consequentialism. Aldershot & Brookfield: Dartmount pp. 351–375.

  • ŠVAŇA L. (2015): War terrorism justice and ethics of social consequences. In: Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) 5(3–4) pp. 211–225.

  • ŠVAŇA L. (2016): On two modern hybrid forms of consequentialism. In: Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe) 6 (3–4) pp. 157–166.

  • ZIMMERMAN M. J. (2006): Is Moral Obligation Objective or Subjective? In: Utilitas 18(4) pp. 329–361.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.35

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.161

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1636 1025 22
PDF Downloads 561 360 24