R. F. Holland

Raimond Gaita

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9205.2012.01486.x

R. F. Holland

Raimond Gaita

Philosophy

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

My tribute to R. F. Holland focuses on what he calls absolute goodness. I try to explain what he means by it and how it connects with the common belief that moral absolutism entails that some acts must not be done whatever the consequences. I argue that Holland believes that this sense of absolute value should be understood in the light of a conception of the kind he develops of absolute goodness; that he is right to believe that absolute ethics (his expression) conflicts with the nature of politics, but that he is wrong to believe that consequentialism is the ethics of politics. Holland believes that it is important to an adequate discussion of absolute ethics and politics to acknowledge that there are things a saints would find morally impossible to do. I defend him against the charger that this begs all the important questions, and I argue further that it is important to understand, even when thinking about politics, that there are things that only a saint could do.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	260-276
Number of pages	17
Journal	PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume	35
Issue number	3-4
Early online date	19 Sept 2012
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9205.2012.01486.x
Publication status	Published - 2012

Access to Document

10.1111/j.1467-9205.2012.01486.x

Cite this

@article{bb209449cafb42bba98d52ab533090b6,

title = "R. F. Holland",

abstract = "My tribute to R. F. Holland focuses on what he calls absolute goodness. I try to explain what he means by it and how it connects with the common belief that moral absolutism entails that some acts must not be done whatever the consequences. I argue that Holland believes that this sense of absolute value should be understood in the light of a conception of the kind he develops of absolute goodness; that he is right to believe that absolute ethics (his expression) conflicts with the nature of politics, but that he is wrong to believe that consequentialism is the ethics of politics. Holland believes that it is important to an adequate discussion of absolute ethics and politics to acknowledge that there are things a saints would find morally impossible to do. I defend him against the charger that this begs all the important questions, and I argue further that it is important to understand, even when thinking about politics, that there are things that only a saint could do.",

author = "Raimond Gaita",

note = "Special Issue: British Wittgenstein Society Conference 2011",

year = "2012",

doi = "10.1111/j.1467-9205.2012.01486.x",

language = "English",

volume = "35",

pages = "260--276",

journal = "PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS",

issn = "0190-0536",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "3-4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - R. F. Holland

AU - Gaita, Raimond

N1 - Special Issue: British Wittgenstein Society Conference 2011

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - My tribute to R. F. Holland focuses on what he calls absolute goodness. I try to explain what he means by it and how it connects with the common belief that moral absolutism entails that some acts must not be done whatever the consequences. I argue that Holland believes that this sense of absolute value should be understood in the light of a conception of the kind he develops of absolute goodness; that he is right to believe that absolute ethics (his expression) conflicts with the nature of politics, but that he is wrong to believe that consequentialism is the ethics of politics. Holland believes that it is important to an adequate discussion of absolute ethics and politics to acknowledge that there are things a saints would find morally impossible to do. I defend him against the charger that this begs all the important questions, and I argue further that it is important to understand, even when thinking about politics, that there are things that only a saint could do.

AB - My tribute to R. F. Holland focuses on what he calls absolute goodness. I try to explain what he means by it and how it connects with the common belief that moral absolutism entails that some acts must not be done whatever the consequences. I argue that Holland believes that this sense of absolute value should be understood in the light of a conception of the kind he develops of absolute goodness; that he is right to believe that absolute ethics (his expression) conflicts with the nature of politics, but that he is wrong to believe that consequentialism is the ethics of politics. Holland believes that it is important to an adequate discussion of absolute ethics and politics to acknowledge that there are things a saints would find morally impossible to do. I defend him against the charger that this begs all the important questions, and I argue further that it is important to understand, even when thinking about politics, that there are things that only a saint could do.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-9205.2012.01486.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-9205.2012.01486.x

M3 - Article

SN - 0190-0536

VL - 35

SP - 260

EP - 276

JO - PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS

JF - PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS

IS - 3-4

ER -

R. F. Holland

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this