Broad in “Five types of ethical theory” analyzed five types. list them and provide the aruments broad gave for each.
You’re likely thinking of C.D. Broad’s book, Five Types of Ethical Theory, where he analyzes the ethical theories of five influential philosophers. Here’s a breakdown of the types and Broad’s arguments:
1. Spinoza:
- Ethical Theory: Rationalist and naturalistic. Spinoza equates moral good with self-preservation and argues that reason dictates we pursue our own self-interest. Virtuous actions are those that increase our power and understanding.
- Broad’s Argument: Broad criticizes Spinoza’s concept of “good” as being too narrow and his neglect of the intrinsic value of things other than self-preservation. He also questions whether reason alone can truly motivate moral action.
2. Butler:
- Ethical Theory: Intuitionist. Butler argues that humans have a conscience that provides intuitive moral guidance. This conscience balances self-love and benevolence, leading to moral harmony.
- Broad’s Argument: Broad appreciates Butler’s emphasis on conscience but finds his concept of “conscience” to be vague. He questions how different, potentially conflicting “intuitions” can be reconciled.
3. Hume:
- Ethical Theory: Sentimentalist. Hume believes that moral judgments are based on emotions, particularly sympathy and benevolence. Reason plays a secondary role in applying moral principles.
- Broad’s Argument: Broad finds Hume’s emphasis on emotion to be valuable but criticizes his reliance on psychological observation rather than a more rigorous philosophical analysis of moral concepts.
4. Kant:
- Ethical Theory: Deontological. Kant argues that morality is based on reason and a universal moral law, the categorical imperative. Moral actions are those performed out of duty to this law, regardless of consequences.
- Broad’s Argument: Broad admires Kant’s rigorous approach but finds his system too rigid and abstract. He questions whether it can adequately account for the complexities of moral life.
5. Sidgwick:
- Ethical Theory: Utilitarian with intuitionist elements. Sidgwick argues that the ultimate good is happiness and that actions should be judged based on their consequences. However, he also acknowledges certain self-evident moral axioms.
- Broad’s Argument: Broad finds Sidgwick’s attempt to reconcile utilitarianism and intuitionism to be insightful but ultimately unsuccessful. He questions whether these two approaches can be truly compatible.
Broad’s Overall Stance:
Broad himself doesn’t champion any single ethical theory. He believes that each theory offers valuable insights but also has limitations. He emphasizes the complexity of human nature and moral experience, suggesting that a single, all-encompassing ethical system may be unattainable.
I wrote:
He seems to favor a view that takes “fittingness” as basic. Yet he recognizes several types of fittingness. Make sense of this.
You’re right, C.D. Broad does lean towards a view that emphasizes “fittingness” as a fundamental concept in ethics. However, he recognizes that “fittingness” itself can be understood in various ways, which adds complexity to his position. Let’s break down how he makes sense of this:
1. Fittingness as a Basic Notion:
Broad argues that “fittingness” is a primitive concept, meaning it cannot be easily defined in terms of other concepts. It’s something we grasp intuitively. He suggests that when we make moral judgments, we often sense that certain actions are “fitting” or “appropriate” in certain situations, while others are not. This sense of fittingness is central to our moral understanding.
2. Different Types of Fittingness:
Broad acknowledges that “fittingness” can take different forms depending on the context. He identifies several types, including:
- Moral Fittingness: This refers to actions that are morally right or obligatory. For example, it’s fitting to help someone in need.
- Aesthetic Fittingness: This applies to judgments of beauty or harmony. For example, it’s fitting for a painting to have balanced composition.
- Intellectual Fittingness: This relates to the appropriateness of beliefs or thoughts. For example, it’s fitting to believe something supported by strong evidence.
3. Challenges and Nuances:
Broad recognizes the challenges in relying on “fittingness” as a foundation for ethics. He acknowledges that:
- Intuitions of fittingness can vary: People might disagree about what is fitting in a given situation.
- Fittingness might not always be clear-cut: There might be cases where the fittingness of an action is ambiguous or uncertain.
- Explaining why something is fitting can be difficult: Since fittingness is a primitive concept, it can be challenging to articulate the reasons behind our intuitions of fittingness.
Making Sense of Broad’s View:
Despite these challenges, Broad believes that the concept of fittingness provides a valuable starting point for ethical inquiry. He suggests that by carefully examining our intuitions of fittingness in different contexts, we can develop a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of morality.
Think of it like this: “fittingness” acts as a sort of moral compass, guiding our actions and judgments. While this compass might not always point in a clear direction, and different people might interpret its readings slightly differently, it still provides a crucial tool for navigating the complexities of moral life.
Broad’s approach encourages us to pay close attention to our moral intuitions and to critically examine the different ways in which “fittingness” operates in our ethical thinking.