I mean what follows as a kind of response to neo-Aristotelian virtue theorists' accounts of practical reason and the human good. Traditionally, Anglo-North American moral theory treats morally reprehensible action as having one of three sources: ignorance of the greater good (emphasized by neo-Aristotelians), weakness of will (sometimes also emphasized by neo-Aristotelians and discussed at some length by neo-Kantians) or imprudence (a favorite among neo-Hobbeseans and also sometimes discussed by neo-Kantians). All three suggest that immorality betrays a failure of practical reason. Shorn of the theology, acting from capital viciousness has none of these kinds of sources and hence, I'll argue, need betray no defect of practical reason.
|© 2002 The University of Chicago|