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....

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Miles, Thomas R. 1923-2008 (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
Year: 1969, Volume: 5, Issue: 2, Pages: 155-160
Online Access: Volltext (Resolving-System)
Volltext (doi)
Description
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