John Foster wrote:
>
> Holistic moral philosophy is, I suppose, a moral philosophy that is
> 'holistic' as opposed to a partial or incomplete moral philosophy. Since I
> do not know of a moral philosophy that is holistic I would think that it is
> one that considers the birds, beasts and flowers in addition to marginal
> groups in societies. Only a conscious and freely dissenting/consenting human
> being [or possibly a dolphin] can be moral since no other agent is
> autonomous. So that would be my starting point. The rest would be more or
> less subject to the one's moral sense of what is right and wrong.
> I guess I'm still confused. A moral philosophy that considers flora, fauna, and
marginal cases would be a moral philosohy. Indeed, it could be an extension of existing
ethical theories or perhaps even a new environmental ethic. However, I haven't grasped
(yet) how it would be a 'holistic' moral philosophy.
If, as Bryan Hyden states, a holistic moral philosophy is inclusive does this mean
that (1) all acts for good or ill fit, or (2) everything must be considered in decision
making? If (1) what criteria are used to make pronouncements? If (2) can we take a
workable stance?
Specific to John's post, if it is the case that only autonomous rational agents are
moral then do we have an holistic moral philosophy or just more stakeholders?
--
Ian
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|