Reply to Criticisms
Abstract. Comments on my essay, “A Tale of Two Controversies,” were made by Daniel R. DeNicola, Thomas F. Green, Mary Hesse, Holmes Rolston 111, and Abner Shimony. This reply focuses first on three issues: that very recently moral philosophy has taken a turn toward a more traditional, particularisti...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Open Library of Humanities$s2024-
1988
|
| In: |
Zygon
Year: 1988, Volume: 23, Issue: 3, Pages: 363-368 |
| Further subjects: | B
philosophy of science
B evolution / creation B Morals |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | Abstract. Comments on my essay, “A Tale of Two Controversies,” were made by Daniel R. DeNicola, Thomas F. Green, Mary Hesse, Holmes Rolston 111, and Abner Shimony. This reply focuses first on three issues: that very recently moral philosophy has taken a turn toward a more traditional, particularistic approach, which could mitigate the problems I described; second, that because creationism is essentially antiscientific, my more philosophical concerns miss the mark; third, that the relativism of the “new philosophy of science” ought not be uncritically accepted. Finally, I compare Hesse's position with that of Shimony, indicating how the former implies a narrowing of distance between scientific description and moral prescription. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-9744 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1988.tb00641.x |