But despite all these differences, all these approaches do share one element: in all of them, there is presumed that there is a fixed guide, or principle. which is presumed to be invariably good to follow. This common element is so vital in its contrast with the morality of consequences that it seems legitimate and clarifying to class this disparate group together for the present discussion.
If the adherent of one of these structural moralities concedes that her fixed guide is not always good to follow, then she has broken out of the framework of that morality. For she evidently has some other, more fundamental, moral perspective that enables her to distinguish those times when the guide is morally valid from those when it is not.
If the adherent of one of these structural moralities concedes that her fixed guide is not always good to follow, then she has broken out of the framework of that morality. For she evidently has some other, more fundamental, moral perspective that enables her to distinguish those times when the guide is morally valid from those when it is not.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
