Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T11:08:51.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Foot's Natural Goodness and the Good of Nature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Philippa Foot is a good philosopher. She is a good person too, insofar as her manner of thinking, conversing, and asking questions are evidence of who she is ‘as a human being’. I begin with reference to Foot as good philosopher and human being for a few reasons. For one, I do so in order to introduce particular uses of the word ‘good’. The guiding question in Foot’s recent Natural Goodness (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001) is whether my ‘she is good’ is simply equivalent to T like it’ or ‘it strikes me in a favorable way’. Do I have some objective basis to make my claim, in reference not only to ‘good philosopher’ but also to ‘good human being’ ? Foot argues that I can be objective in both descriptions, that a non-subjective account of ‘good’ is necessary to make sense of how practical reason is both practical and reasonable. By staking out the non-subjective constraints of practical reason, she suggests that the modern ‘turn to the subject’ has come to its dead end. This dead end is a leading concern of my remarks on Foot’s Natural Goodness, and my principal aim is to advance her arguments for a teleological conception of nature, particularly human nature. But first, there is more to say about what is good.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 Pieper, Josef, The Four Cardinal Virtues (University of Notre Dame, 1966)Google Scholar.

2 Anscombe, , Ethics, Religion, and Politics, Collected Works, Volume III (University of Minnesota, 1981) 18Google Scholar.

3 Sowle Cahill, Lisa, ‘Teleology, Utilitarianism, and Christian Ethics’, Theological Studies 42 (1981) 4: 601–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Porter, Jean, ‘Basic Goods and the Human Good in Recent Catholic Moral Theology’, The Thormist 57 (January 1993) 1: 2749CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Foot, The Philosophical Review 81 (July 1972) 3: 305–16Google Scholar.

5 Hume, , A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by Selby‐Bigge, L. A. (Clarendon, 1888) xxGoogle Scholar.

6 Passmore, John, Hume's Intentions (Basic Books, 1952)Google Scholar.

7 Singer, , Practical Ethics (Cambridge University, 1993)Google Scholar.

8 Kroner, Richard, Kant's Weltanschauug, translated by Smith, John E. (University of Chicago, 1956)Google Scholar.

9 Pope, Stephen, ‘The Biological “Roots” of Personhood and Morality’, Josephinum Journal of Theology 8 (Summer/Fall 2001)2: 93–5Google Scholar