Philippa Foot
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 21:26, 10 May 2017 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| + | '''Philippa Ruth Foot''' (née '''Bosanquet'''; 3 October 1920 - 3 October 2010) was a [[British philosopher]], most notable for her works in [[ethics]]. She was one of the founders of contemporary [[virtue ethics]], inspired by the ethics of [[Aristotle]]. Her later career marked a significant change in view from her work in the 1950s and 1960s, and may be seen as an attempt to modernize [[Aristotelianism|Aristotelian]] ethical theory, to show that it is adaptable to a contemporary world view, and thus, that it could compete with such popular theories as modern [[deontology|deontological]] and [[utilitarianism|utilitarian]] ethics. Some of her work was crucial in the re-emergence of [[normative ethics]] within [[analytic philosophy]], especially her critique of [[consequentialism]] and of [[non-cognitivism]]. A familiar example is the continuing discussion of an example of hers referred to as the [[trolley problem]]. Foot's approach was influenced by the later work of [[Wittgenstein]], although she rarely dealt explicitly with materials treated by him. | ||
| - | '''Virtue ethics''' (or '''aretaic ethics'''from the [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] ''[[arete]]'') emphasizes the role of one's character and the [[virtue]]s that one's character embodies for determining or evaluating ethical behavior. Virtue ethics is one of the three major approaches to [[normative ethics]], often contrasted to [[deontology]] which emphasizes duty to rules and [[consequentialism]] which derives rightness or wrongness from the outcome of the act itself. | + | ==Selected works== |
| - | + | *''Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy''. Berkeley: University of California Press; Oxford: Blackwell, 1978 (there are more recent editions). | |
| - | The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more in the ways in which moral dilemmas are approached, rather than in the moral conclusions reached. For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying—though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is ''always'' wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior. As such, the morality of lying would be determined on a case-by-case basis, which would be based on factors such as personal benefit, group benefit, and intentions (as to whether they are benevolent or malevolent). | + | *''Natural Goodness''. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. |
| - | + | *''Moral Dilemmas: And Other Topics in Moral Philosophy'', Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. | |
| - | ==Contemporary 'aretaic turn'==<!--'Aretaic turn' redirects here--> | + | *Warren Quinn, ''Morality and Action'', ed. Philippa Foot (Introduction, ix-xii), Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1993. |
| - | + | ||
| - | Although some [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] philosophers (e.g. [[David Hume|Hume]]) continued to emphasize the virtues, with the ascendancy of [[utilitarianism]] and [[deontology]], virtue theory moved to the margins of Western philosophy. The contemporary revival of virtue theory is frequently traced to the philosopher [[G. E. M. Anscombe]]'s 1958 essay "[[Modern Moral Philosophy]]". Following this: | + | |
| - | * In the 1976 paper "[[The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories]]", Michael Stocker summarises the main aretaic criticisms of deontological and consequentialist ethics. | + | |
| - | * [[Philippa Foot]], who published a collection of essays in 1978 entitled ''Virtues and Vices.'' | + | |
| - | * [[Alasdair MacIntyre]] has made an effort to reconstruct a virtue-based theory in dialogue with the problems of modern and [[postmodernism|postmodern]] thought; his works include ''[[After Virtue]]'' and ''Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry''. | + | |
| - | * [[Paul Ricoeur]] has accorded an important place to Aristotelian [[teleological ethics]] in his [[hermeneutical]] [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenology]] of the subject, most notably in his book ''Oneself as Another''. | + | |
| - | * theologian [[Stanley Hauerwas]] has also found the language of virtue quite helpful in his own project. | + | |
| - | * [[Rosalind Hursthouse]] has published ''On Virtue Ethics''. | + | |
| - | * [[Roger Crisp]] and [[Michael Slote]] have edited a collection of important essays titled ''Virtue Ethics'' | + | |
| - | * [[Martha Nussbaum]] and [[Amartya Sen]] have employed virtue theory in theorizing the [[capability approach]] to [[international development]]. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | The '''aretaic turn''' in moral philosophy is paralleled by analogous developments in other philosophical disciplines. One of these is [[epistemology]], where a distinctive [[virtue epistemology]] has been developed by [[Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski|Linda Zagzebski]] and others. In political theory, there has been discussion of "virtue politics", and in legal theory, there is a small but growing body of literature on [[virtue jurisprudence]]. The aretaic turn also exists in [[United States of America|American]] [[constitutional theory]], where proponents argue for an emphasis on virtue and vice of constitutional [[adjudicator]]s. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Aretaic approaches to morality, epistemology, and jurisprudence have been the subject of intense debates. One criticism that is frequently made focuses on the problem of guidance; opponents, such as Robert Louden in his article "Some Vices of Virtue Ethics", question whether the idea of a virtuous moral actor, believer, or judge can provide the guidance necessary for action, belief formation, or the decision of legal disputes. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| - | * [[Arete]] | + | * [[Judith Jarvis Thomson]] |
| - | * [[Aretaic turn]] | + | * [[G.E.M. Anscombe]] |
| - | * [[Buddhist Ethics (discipline)]] | + | * [[Rosalind Hursthouse]] |
| - | * [[Confucianism]] | + | * [[Thought experiment]] |
| - | * [[Cynics|Cynicism]] | + | * [[Trolley problem]] |
| - | * [[Eudaimonism]] | + | |
| - | * [[Rule according to higher law]] | + | |
| - | * [[Seven virtues]] | + | |
| - | * [[Stoicism]] | + | |
| - | * [[Virtue jurisprudence]] | + | |
| - | * [[Virtue]] | + | |
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Current revision
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
Philippa Ruth Foot (née Bosanquet; 3 October 1920 - 3 October 2010) was a British philosopher, most notable for her works in ethics. She was one of the founders of contemporary virtue ethics, inspired by the ethics of Aristotle. Her later career marked a significant change in view from her work in the 1950s and 1960s, and may be seen as an attempt to modernize Aristotelian ethical theory, to show that it is adaptable to a contemporary world view, and thus, that it could compete with such popular theories as modern deontological and utilitarian ethics. Some of her work was crucial in the re-emergence of normative ethics within analytic philosophy, especially her critique of consequentialism and of non-cognitivism. A familiar example is the continuing discussion of an example of hers referred to as the trolley problem. Foot's approach was influenced by the later work of Wittgenstein, although she rarely dealt explicitly with materials treated by him.
[edit]
Selected works
- Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press; Oxford: Blackwell, 1978 (there are more recent editions).
- Natural Goodness. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001.
- Moral Dilemmas: And Other Topics in Moral Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.
- Warren Quinn, Morality and Action, ed. Philippa Foot (Introduction, ix-xii), Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[edit]
See also
Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "Philippa Foot" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on research by Jahsonic and friends. See Art and Popular Culture's copyright notice.
