Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-24hb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T08:56:18.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comments on the Commentaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2004

J. B. SCHNEEWIND
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University

Abstract

Adams's suggestion that there must be one really right way of presenting the history of moral philosophy seems implausible to me, so I reject – with additional reasons – his charges against the structure of Invention of Autonomy. Skorupski's way of stating the ‘equal moral abilities’ thesis is not, I argue, very Kantian; a more Kantian version is not open to his objections. I am unconvinced by Schultz's claim that Sidgwick did not really hold that thesis. Deigh raises questions I cannot reply to here, but I do offer some texts that seem to show that Sidgwick is not guilty of the confusion about ‘ought’ with which Deigh charges him.

Type
SYMPOSIUM ON J. B. SCHNEEWIND'S PHILOSOPHY
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)