![]() His forceful arguments will change how we understand a concept central to ethics and our understanding of human bonds and human choices. Darwall defends this theory with clarity, precision, and elegance, and with a subtle understanding of the place of sympathetic concern in the rich psychology of sympathy and empathy. In addition, Darwall makes the radical proposal that something's contributing to someone's welfare is the same thing as its being something one ought to want for her own sake, insofar as one cares. ![]() This account, OldRowSwig, says that OKeefe has been ejected from PV due to the machinations of disgruntled board members and fired employees: Swig OldRowSwig. Welfare, in other words, is normative, but not peculiarly for the person whose welfare is at stake. Update on James OKeefe/Project Veritas Drama. In the now standard terminology, welfare is assumed to have an "agent-relative normativity." Darwall by contrast argues that someone's good is what one should want for that person insofar as one cares for her. Most philosophers have assumed that a person's welfare is what is good from her point of view, namely, what she has a distinctive reason to pursue. Presenting a provocative new "rational care theory of welfare," Darwall proves that a proper understanding of welfare fundamentally changes how we think about what is best for people. And, as Stephen Darwall shows, it has done so at a price. But what exactly is welfare? This question has suffered from relative neglect. What kind of life best ensures human welfare? Since the ancient Greeks, this question has been as central to ethical philosophy as to ordinary reflection.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |