G.E.M. Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy" argues that modern ethics, divorced from the concept of divine law, has become incoherent. The central thesis is that abandoning theological foundations leaves moral judgments without a proper grounding for obligation and duty, leading to concepts like "ought" becoming meaningless. Anscombe asserts that ethical theories focusing on utility or consequences fail to adequately capture the nature of moral wrongness because they do not specify a lawgiver or a reason for obligation.
The book revisits and critiques prominent ethical systems, particularly those of utilitarianism and Kantian deontology, demonstrating their inadequacies in the absence of a theological framework. Anscombe advocates for a return to a virtue-based ethics, emphasizing character and the development of human flourishing, which she believes can provide a more robust understanding of moral concepts like right and wrong. Readers gain an understanding of the historical and philosophical challenges facing secular ethics and a potential alternative framework for moral reasoning.
Full text isn't indexed yet — this overview draws on general knowledge of the book and its metadata, and chat works the same way.
Key concepts
- Divine Law — The foundational concept that moral obligations derive from God's commands, providing a basis for "ought."
- Deontological Ethics — Ethical theories, like Kant's, that focus on duties and rules, which Anscombe finds problematic without a divine legislator.
- Utilitarianism — Ethical theories, like Bentham's and Mill's, that derive morality from consequences and utility, which Anscombe criticizes for lacking a basis for obligation.
- Virtue Ethics — An ethical approach that emphasizes character and the cultivation of virtues, which Anscombe sees as a potential replacement for law-based ethics.
- "Ought" (Meaningless) — Anscombe's claim that the concept of moral obligation becomes incoherent and meaningless without a divine lawgiver.