Anton Leist

Morality and society in moral philosophy are rarely brought into direct contact, at least not at a fundamental level of justification. David Copp develops an account of practical and moral rationality that could constitute a radical change. According to Copp moral theory has tobe ‘society-centered’ rather than focussing on the individual. This article is devoted to the moral content and structural features of a socially centered moral theory, and along those lines to its critical assessment. Concluding, it will seek to present an argument why moral philosophy ought not place society at the centre of its view.

In seinem im Stil einer vorlesungsartigen Einführung in die Ethik verfaßten Buch stellt Anton Leist die unausweichliche Bedeutung der Ethik für jeden einzelnen in seinem eigenen Leben heraus. Verstanden wird die Moral in einem an Kant orientierten Vorschlag als eine ideelle Konstruktion, die objektive Kriterien sowohl entwickelt wie ihnen gehorcht. Inhaltlich entsteht dabei eine universelle Moral, die allerdings von internen Widersprüchen bedroht ist. Die persönlichen und unpersönlichen Beziehungen, die Forderungen nach Hilfe und Nichtschaden stehen widersprüchlich zueinander und benötigen einer neuen Zuordnung. Der moderne Universalismus ist auch heute noch weitgehend ein Programm – wenn auch, wie der Autor zeigt, ein grundsätzlich realisierbares.

Die analytische Handlungstheorie ist gegenwärtig in einem Stadium, in dem sie sich anschickt, ihre vor allem von D. Davidson fixierte Programmatik zu verlassen. Unter den zwei Bedingungen, Beschreibungsabhängigkeit und Gründe-Ursachen-Synthese, gewinnt, anders als bei Davidson, die Erstere zunehmend größeres Gewicht. Den hoffnungsvollen Übergang zu einer holistisch-kontextuellen Handlungstheorie belegen drei neuere Diskussionen, deren Verlauf geschildert wird: das Wiedergewinnen der Absichten in Bratmans Plänetheorie, die Suche nach nicht auf Glauben/Wünsche-Paare reduzible Handlungsgründe und das Entdecken der Akteursaktivität, einschließlich der Rolle des normativ rekonstruierten Akteurs

“Having a moral right” in private and public debates probably is one of the most important arguments to bring some foundation to one’s claims. Within international law and politics, for example, one easily falls back on universal “human rights”, especially if neither a more subtle moral argument nor prudential reasons find a hold. But in some contrast to this agreement on the strong practical relevance of rights, both the conceptual analysis and normative justification of rights are rather controversial in moral philosophy. There is, perhaps, a consensus on a constructivist understanding of rights, that is that rights have to be constructed from a basis of more “elementary parts” of morality. There is no agreement, however, on the exact character of these parts and their normative import within an overall construction of rights. It seems to be clear somehow that rights have to secure and promote interests — of a human and animal kind. Not so clear is the kind of foundation rights can be given within the sphere of interests, especially if this is understood in a reductive sense. Nevertheless, because the function of rights is to secure interests, the construction of rights from an understanding of interests seems to suggest itself. It is in the interest of all beings to have their interests secured and furthered by rights. Therefore, an “interest theory of rights” provides itself as a primary option — meaning thereby the justificatory, and not the directive side of rights

Myers' offer of cooperation as a medicine for ailing moral theories is welcomed as potentially helpful, even if his handling of it is diagnosed as implicitly one-sided consequentialist. His search for an ethically “substantive way of engaging with others” is shown as not coherent with his remarks on the tasks cooperation as an ethical concept has to fulfil. Instead, it is proposed that the concept be disentangled from the micro- problems Myers' wants it to solve, and that it be read more freely, from the perspective of Rawls' conception of cooperation.

The degradation of natural resources in the environment is, technically speaking, a form of depleting a public good. Public goods are notorious for free-riding among egoists, but the marginality of individual contributions provides no less an obstacle, both to moral duty and motivation. This article discusses the problems of minimized and missing causal involvement on the empirical side; and, in the applicability of classical moral arguments, on the ethical side. It. suggests that individual responsibility is derived on the basis of implicit advantage-taking from participation in collective action.