Hutcheson and his Critics and Opponents on the Moral Sense

IF 0.4 0 PHILOSOPHY Journal of Scottish Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.3366/jsp.2022.0330
Ruth Boeker
{"title":"Hutcheson and his Critics and Opponents on the Moral Sense","authors":"Ruth Boeker","doi":"10.3366/jsp.2022.0330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper takes a new look at Francis Hutcheson's moral sense theory and examines it in light of the views of his rationalist critics and opponents who claim that there has to be an antecedent moral standard prior to any sense or affections. I examine how Gilbert Burnet, Samuel Clarke, and Catharine Trotter Cockburn each argue for the priority of reason over a moral sense and how Hutcheson responds or could respond to their views. Furthermore, I consider the proposal that rather than regarding Hutcheson's moral sense theory as fundamentally opposed to moral rationalism, Hutcheson and Clarke endorse a shared moral metaphysics, as argued by Patricia Sheridan. Although I consider this proposal as too broad and believe it overlooks relevant metaphysical differences between Clarke and Hutcheson, I argue that the dispute between Hutcheson and his critics and opponents will not be settled without taking their underlying moral metaphysics into consideration.","PeriodicalId":41417,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scottish Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Scottish Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/jsp.2022.0330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper takes a new look at Francis Hutcheson's moral sense theory and examines it in light of the views of his rationalist critics and opponents who claim that there has to be an antecedent moral standard prior to any sense or affections. I examine how Gilbert Burnet, Samuel Clarke, and Catharine Trotter Cockburn each argue for the priority of reason over a moral sense and how Hutcheson responds or could respond to their views. Furthermore, I consider the proposal that rather than regarding Hutcheson's moral sense theory as fundamentally opposed to moral rationalism, Hutcheson and Clarke endorse a shared moral metaphysics, as argued by Patricia Sheridan. Although I consider this proposal as too broad and believe it overlooks relevant metaphysical differences between Clarke and Hutcheson, I argue that the dispute between Hutcheson and his critics and opponents will not be settled without taking their underlying moral metaphysics into consideration.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哈奇森和他的道德意识批判与反对者
本文对弗朗西斯·赫奇森的道德感理论进行了新的审视,并根据其理性主义批评者和反对者的观点对其进行了考察,他们认为任何感觉或情感都必须有一个先行的道德标准。我研究了Gilbert Burnet、Samuel Clarke和Catharine Trotter Cockburn如何各自主张理性优先于道德感,以及Hutcheson如何回应或可能回应他们的观点。此外,我认为,与其将哈奇森的道德感理论视为从根本上反对道德理性主义,不如像帕特里夏·谢里丹所说的那样,哈奇森和克拉克赞同一种共同的道德形而上学。尽管我认为这一提议过于宽泛,并认为它忽略了克拉克和哈奇森之间相关的形而上学差异,但我认为,如果不考虑他们潜在的道德形而上学,哈奇森与他的批评者和反对者之间的争端就无法解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Maximalising Providence: Samuel Rutherford's Augustinian Transformation of Scotist Scholasticism Archibald Pitcairne and the Newtonian Turn of Medical Philosophy Robert Balfour and William Chalmers on the Essence, Existence and Aptness of Accidents New Studies on Seventeenth-Century Scottish Philosophy Direct or Indirect Scotism? Seventeenth-Century Scottish Scholasticism and the Case of James Sibbald (1595–1647)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1