Reason and Morality

Reason and Morality
Cover
Author Alan Gewirth
Country United States
Language English
Subject Ethics
Publisher University of Chicago Press
Publication date
 1978
Media type Print (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages 401 (paperback edition)
ISBN 978-0226288765

Reason and Morality is a 1978 book about ethics by the philosopher Alan Gewirth, in which the author attempts to develop a rational foundation for morality, beginning from the premise that every rational agent must have freedom and well-being. The book, which received positive reviews, is famous and has received much attention. It is the work for which Gewirth is best known. However, some philosophers have criticized Gewirth's arguments. Gewirth responded to many of the criticisms made of his work. Gewirth's work is defended by the legal scholar Deryck Beyleveld in The Dialectical Necessity of Morality (1991).

Summary

Gewirth attempts to develop a rational foundation for morality. He begins from the premise, which in his view every rational agent must accept, that rational agents must have freedom and well-being. He argues that when the implications of this claim are fully worked out, it follows that every rational agent must also accept the claim that all prospective purposive agents have a moral right to freedom and well-being.[1]

Publication history

Reason and Morality was first published in 1978 by the University of Chicago Press.[2]

Reception

Mainstream media

Reason and Morality received a positive review from Robert Hoffman in Library Journal,[3] and discussions in Choice from H. Oberdiek and J. M. Betz.[4][5]

Hoffman wrote that the book was "ambitious and careful" and "eminently worth reading."[3]

Academic journals

Reason and Morality received a positive review from the philosopher Loren Lomasky in The Philosophical Quarterly.[6] The book was also reviewed by E. M. Adams in The Review of Metaphysics,[7] and received discussions from Richard Brooks in the Journal of Legal Education,[8] the philosopher Marcus George Singer in Ratio Juris,[9] Ari Kohen in Human Rights Review,[10] Eric Reitan in Social Theory and Practice,[11] Brian K. Powell in Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review,[12] Rutger Claassen and Marcus Düwell in Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,[13] and Anna-Karin Margareta Andersson in the Journal of Medical Ethics.[14]

Lomasky found some of Gewirth's arguments to be flawed, believed that Gewirth failed to establish the "rationally necessary supreme substantive principle" of morality, and noted that it "has been suggested that the universalisation extending the proscription against interference as a normative rule incumbent upon all agents is invalid." He also questioned "the concept of having a right to non-interference", arguing that it was doubtful that the fact that people want freedom and well-being logically supported the claim that people have rights to these things. However, he agreed with Gewirth's view that the purposive and voluntary nature of action shows that it has a "normative structure", and believed that a view of morality similar to Gewirth's might be defensible. He concluded that Gewirth's book was "an essential resource for all subsequent explorations" of the issues it discussed.[6]

Brooks credited Gewirth with providing "a complex and detailed brief for an individualist, humanist, ethical position" and presenting "a logical linkage between the system and legal decision making relevant to law students."[8] Singer wrote that the book was "justly famous" and a "masterful treatise", and that it was praised by the philosopher Henry Babcock Veatch. According to Singer, the book became the focus of an "immense volume of commentary", with Gewirth's idea of prudential rights being especially controversial, having received criticism from Singer himself, as well as other authors. He noted that Gewirth had responded to the commentary on his work and that Deryck Beyleveld, in The Dialectical Necessity of Morality (1991), discussed criticisms of it and defended Gewirth's views, though in his opinion Beyleveld was not successful in defending Gewirth's view of prudential rights. He argued that while Gewirth book was original and brilliant, it had the defect that Gewirth's outlook excluded the possibility of reasonable disagreement about moral issues.[9]

Kohen wrote that Gewirth's ideas had received nearly as much attention as those advanced by the philosopher John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (1971). He noted that Gewirth, assisted by Beyleveld, had responded to many of his critics, but argued that Gewirth failed to provide an adequate "secular foundation for the idea of human rights." He criticized Gewirth's view "that self-contradiction represents the most compelling argument against violating human rights". He also argued that "an agent might accept the first part of Gewirth’s theory about his own generic rights and reject without contradiction the second part about universalizing those rights" and that "Gewirth’s prospective purposive agents are too far removed from the real world in which human rights are actually in play." He drew on the ideas of the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan to criticize Gewirth's work.[10] Powell suggested that there was a "decisive objection" to Gewirth's views, which he compared to those of the philosophers Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel.[12] Claassen and Düwell compared Gewirth's views to those of the philosopher Martha Nussbaum. They noted that Gewirth's approach to morality "has been widely discussed with regard to its basic assumptions and the strengths and weaknesses of its justification" and that it has been "applied to discourses about human rights, political philosophy, economy, and bioethics".[13]

Evaluations in books

The philosopher Jan Narveson, writing in The Libertarian Idea (1988), noted that Reason and Morality was an important work. However, he considered Gewirth's moral theory open to criticism. Narveson argued that while, according to Gewirth, rational agents must acknowledge a certain set of rights because those rights are required for their "purpose-fulfilling actions", such actions do not require rights but only "enough noninterference by others". He also rejected Gewirth's view that rational agents must acknowledge these rights for all in order to claim them for themselves, arguing that, in a person's capacity as a rational agent, they want only noninterference from others, and that this does not logically require them to accept "the duties entailed by wholehearted acceptance" of the rights Gewirth sees as following from people's need to engage in "purpose-fulfilling actions".[15]

James P. Sterba, writing in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2005), stated that Reason and Morality is the work for which Gewirth is best known.[1]

References

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 Sterba 2005, p. 339.
  2. ↑ Gewirth 1981, p. iv.
  3. 1 2 Hoffman 1978, p. 464.
  4. ↑ Obderiek 1990, p. 1694.
  5. ↑ Betz 1996, p. 534.
  6. 1 2 Lomasky 1981, pp. 248–253.
  7. ↑ Adams 1980, pp. 579–592.
  8. 1 2 Brooks 1981, pp. 287–305.
  9. 1 2 Singer 2000, pp. 177–195.
  10. 1 2 Kohen 2005, pp. 49–75.
  11. ↑ Reitan 2006, pp. 415–438.
  12. 1 2 Powell 2009, pp. 373–386.
  13. 1 2 Claassen & Düwell 2013, pp. 493–510.
  14. ↑ Andersson 2016, pp. 242–245.
  15. ↑ Narveson 2001, p. 171.

Bibliography

Books

  • Gewirth, Alan (1981). Reason and Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226288765.
  • Narveson, Jan (2001). The Libertarian Idea. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press. ISBN 1-55111-421-6.
  • Sterba, James P.; Honderich, Ted, Editor (2005). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-926479-1.
Journals

  • Adams, E. M. (1980). "Gewirth on Reason and Morality". The Review of Metaphysics. 33 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Andersson, Anna-Karin Margareta (2016). "Challenging the principle of proportionality". Journal of Medical Ethics. 42 (4).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Betz, J. M. (1996). "The community of rights (Book Review)". Choice. 34.  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Brooks, Richard (1981). "The Future of Ethical Humanism, the Re-Introduction of Ethics into the Legal World: Alan Gewirth's "Reason and Morality."". Journal of Legal Education. 31 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Claassen, Rutger; Düwell, Marcus (2013). "The Foundations of Capability Theory: Comparing Nussbaum and Gewirth". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 16 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Hoffman, Robert (1978). "Reason and Morality (book review)". Library Journal. 103 (4).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Kohen, Ari (2005). "The Possibility of Secular Human Rights: Alan Gewirth and the Principle of Generic Consistency". Human Rights Review. 7 (1).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Lomasky, Loren E. (1981). "Gewirth's generation of rights". The Philosophical Quarterly. 31 (124).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Oberdiek, H. (1990). "Justice and modern moral philosophy (Book Review)". Choice. 27.  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Powell, Brian K. (2009). "Discourse Ethics and Moral Rationalism". Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review. 48 (2).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Reitan, Eric (2006). "Self-Defense and the Principle of Generic Consistency: Must Gewirth Be an Absolute Pacifist?". Social Theory and Practice. 32 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Singer, Marcus G. (2000). "Gewirth, Beyleveld, and Dialectical Necessity". Ratio Juris. 13 (2).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.