Have Elephant Seals Refuted Aristotle? 
Nature, Function, and Moral Goodness

in Journal of Moral Philosophy
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

An influential strand of neo-Aristotelianism, represented by writers such as Philippa Foot, holds that moral virtue is a form of natural goodness in human beings, analogous to deep roots in oak trees or keen vision in hawks. Critics, however, have argued that such a view cannot get off the ground, because the neo-Aristotelian account of natural normativity is untenable in light of a Darwinian account of living things. This criticism has been developed most fully by William Fitzpatrick in his book Teleology and the Norms of Nature. In this paper, I defend the neo-Aristotelian account of natural normativity, focusing on Fitzpatrick’s arguments. I argue that a natural goodness view is not impugned by an evolutionary account. Nor can neo-Aristotelian life form judgments be replaced by an evolutionary view of living things.

Have Elephant Seals Refuted Aristotle? 
Nature, Function, and Moral Goodness

in Journal of Moral Philosophy

Sections

References

1

Philippa FootNatural Goodness (Oxford: Oxford University Press2001); Michael Thompson Life and Action (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 2008).

2

Robert AdamsA Theory of Virtue (Oxford: Oxford University Press2006) 51.

3

William FitzpatrickTeleology and the Norms of Nature (New York: Garland Publishing2000). Although Fitzpatrick’s book was published prior to the books by Foot and Thompson their ideas about natural goodness were already available to Fitzpatrick both in published papers and in lectures. Arguments similar to those of Fitzpatrick have also been made in a less developed way by Joseph Millum in “Natural Goodness and Natural Evil” Ratio XIX June 2006 199-213.

8

ThompsonLife and Action73. Italics in original.

12

FootNatural Goodness35.

18

Philippa Foot“Rationality and Goodness” in Modern Moral Philosophy ed. Anthony O’Hear (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press2004) 11-12.

19

Michael Thompson“Three Degrees of Natural Goodness” 5. This essay originally appeared as a discussion note in Iride (2003). Online edition available at: http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/

20

FitzpatrickTeleology and the Norms of Nature186. Italics in original.

32

FitzpatrickTeleology and the Norms of Nature10.

36

ThompsonLife and Action55.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 11 11 10
Full Text Views 13 13 13
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0