Comments on Meynell's Paper
The key points in Meynell's argument seem to me to be as follows: (1) It is logically absurd to say of an action or of a state of affairs that it is good unless at least some or other of the qualities w, x, y, z, etc. (e.g. being socially approved or being productive of happiness) are present....
| Published in: | Religious studies |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
[1969]
|
| In: |
Religious studies
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | The key points in Meynell's argument seem to me to be as follows: (1) It is logically absurd to say of an action or of a state of affairs that it is good unless at least some or other of the qualities w, x, y, z, etc. (e.g. being socially approved or being productive of happiness) are present. Similarly it is logically absurd to talk of human flourishing unless some or other specifiable features are present in a person's life. (2) The Heimler questionnaire shows us the sorts of ways in which the notion of human flourishing might be unpacked', viz, in terms of satisfaction through friendship, etc. I am in full agreement with him over (1) and I shall simply add some further comments on the notion of evaluating'; but as far as (2) is concerned I shall voice some doubts and reservations. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-901X |
| Reference: | Kritik von "On the Scope of Moral Inquiry (1969)"
Kritik in "Reply to Professor Miles (1969)" |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0034412500004169 |