G. E. M. Anscombe

Many philosophers nowadays take for granted a causalist view of action explanation, according to which intentional action is a movement caused by mental antecedents. For them, “the possibility of human agency evidently requires that our mental states – our beliefs, desires, and intentions – have causal effects in the physical world: in voluntary actions our beliefs and desires, or intentions and decisions, must somehow cause our limbs to move in appropriate ways” (Jaegwon Kim, Mind in a Physical World, Cambridge (MA), (...) MIT Press, 2000 (1998), p. 31). The main question then is not to know whether there is mental causation at all, but how we should account for it. How can the mind move our body? In her 1983 paper, “The Causation of Action”, Elizabeth Anscombe shows how confused this way of putting things is. For her, if intentions or beliefs can indeed be taken to be causes of action, it is not in any metaphysically problematic sense. Seeing this requires us to distinguish clearly two theses: (1) “to be done in execution of a certain intention” is not a causal relation between intention and action; (2) an intention may be said to cause something: but this pertains to a specific kind of causal history, different from that which is uncovered by physical enquiry. First we will show how the metaphysical problem of mental causation arises from a given conception of action. Then we will turn to Anscombe’s arguments in favour of the two aforementioned theses. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to show that if and only if agents are motivated to act by good reasons for acting, they flourish, since, in so doing, they consciously act in accordance with their nature through virtuous actions. I offer an account of what good reasons for acting consist of reconsidering Aquinas’ natural inclinations. Based on a critical analysis of Anjum and Mumford’s work on dispositions in analytic metaphysics, I argue, contra Hume’s law, that Aquinas’ natural inclinations show (...) that metaphysics is foundational for ethics. I claim that agents flourish as human beings if and only if they consciously act in accordance with natural inclinations. Natural inclinations naturally tend towards goods that depend on the metaphysical structure of human nature, by virtue of which agents have some powers that they should actualise in order to flourish. Intellect and will are the rational powers that distinguish human beings from other living beings. The will naturally desires what is good. If the will, through the input of the intellect, desires what is genuinely good for human beings according to their nature, it also directs the other powers to their own actualisation. Natural inclinations do not strictly necessitate agents to act in accordance with them, because, by virtue of their rational powers, agents should also recognise that they have a reason for acting in accordance with them. Thus, I will suggest that we can best appreciate the importance of natural inclinations from the first-person perspective. (shrink)

Elizabeth Anscombe and Gilbert Ryle both hold that the knowledge we have of what we are intentionally doing is non-observational – denying, in Anscombe’s terms, that there is any ‘strange kind of seeing eye in the middle of action’. This paper argues that the narrowness of their notions of ‘observation’ plausibly allows for the possibility that action, despite being non-observational, has its own kind of sight – thus strictly allowing that practical knowledge is non-observational while also admitting a kind of (...) seeing eye into the middle of action. (shrink)

The paper distinguishes two versions of the guise of the good in Anscombe’s Intention and raises some doubts about Francesco Orsi’s recent proposal for how these two versions hang together. While Orsi’s interpretation of the two versions are separately insightful and illuminating, Orsi’s “Anscombean argument” for connecting Anscombe’s two versions of the guise of the good is at odds with Anscombe’s own approach.

Philosophical anarchism, in its strongest form, says that a right to be obeyed would run up against the duty to act autonomously, so there must be no one with a right to be obeyed. More recently, a parallel criticism of moral testimony has been advanced according to which there can be no right to be believed about moral matters because it would lead us to fail in our duty to form our moral beliefs for ourselves, and thus to bear responsibility (...) for the beliefs and the actions we perform on account of them. This essay advances an interpretation of both objections to practical deference and a novel solution drawing on G.E.M. Anscombe’s little discussed essay, “Authority in Morals.” I argue that the concern animating a priori anarchism and this version of moral testimony pessimism is that practical deference undermines our responsibility for our actions or beliefs. Anscombe’s discussion of teaching authority affords us a way of seeing that this is wrong-headed. In fact, the right to be obeyed or believed does not— and cannot— threaten to undermine a subject’s responsibility for what she believes or does out of deference to authority. (shrink)

Aristotelian Naturalism is an ethics on which moral goodness is a species of natural goodness—the kind of goodness we find on display in other creatures whose habits and activities enable them to thrive. What it takes for humans to be good is to have habits and engage in activities that contribute to human flourishing. The primary aim of the book is to present a version of Aristotelian Naturalism enriched by empirical evidence and responsive to criticisms from feminist and disability ethics. (...) On the revisionist, Pluralist Aristotelian Naturalism developed here, human goodness is not a single, unitary ideal to which all humans should aim. Instead, it instead admits of real diversity, just as goodness in general admits of diversity across various species. There is a plurality of human goodnesses, and consequently, a variety of sets of human virtues that promote human flourishing in its many forms. The book explicates an Aristotelian methodology of ethics on which we must use philosophical reasoning to integrate observational evidence about the shape life forms take and the dispositions that contribute to good human lives. When we observe about what humans are and do in order to thrive in a wide array of bodies, social-political contexts, and environments, this puts pressure on the standard Aristotelian Naturalist singular ideal of human goodness as depicted by a flourishing neurotypical, able-bodied, resource-rich mature adult. Rather, we have reason to think that there is such substantial variation in human forms of life, and in what people can do and be in order to flourish, that there is not one human goodness and one set of virtues. Instead, there is a diversity of forms of human goodness, all equally valuable—whether the goodness of young children, adolescents, for people with intellectual disabilities, in old age, for people living in affluent democratic states, and for those managing to be good while under oppression in authoritarian regimes. Moreover, when we achieve one kind of human goodness, this changes what we are able to do and be. By being good in one way, we acquire the capacity to be good in another way. Thus we learn that most of us, for most of our lives, are simultaneously being and becoming good. (shrink)

Benjamin J.B. Lipscomb, The Women Are up to Something. How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics, Oxford University Press, New York, 2022, 326pp., ISBN 978–0–19–754107–4.

In his 2007 book, /Self-Consciousness/, Sebastian Rödl presents his topic—that of first-person thought—as ‘a manner of thinking of an object, or a form of reference’ to a particular thing. A decade later, in /Self-Consciousness and Objectivity: An Introduction to Absolute Idealism/, Rödl rejects what he now calls the ‘lingering naturalism’ of that earlier work, which he roots in the ‘dogmatic presupposition’ that ‘I’ is a word that makes reference. The volume under review comprises seventeen critical essays on /Self-Consciousness and Objectivity/, (...) together with an introduction by Jesse M. Mulder and a lengthy set of replies from Rödl. Given the scope of the issues they raise, my discussion focuses on one important thread that runs through a number of the essays, namely the question of whether Rödl’s anti-naturalism can accommodate the evident fact that at least some of the subjects of thought and judgment are individual human beings. (shrink)

One is sometimes, but only sometimes, justified in pursuing a suboptimal course of action due to a concern that, in attempting the ideal course, one might fail to follow through and so make the situation even worse. This paper explains why such hedging is sometimes justified and sometimes not. -/- The explanation we offer relies on Elizabeth Anscombe’s distinction between reasons and logoi. Reasons are normative considerations that identify something good or bad that an act will secure or avoid, while (...) logoi constrain which actions one may consider at all. We argue that a careful unpacking of this distinction, in light of Anscombe’s associated notion of natural unintelligibility, explains why hedging is only sometimes justified. First, the intuitively inappropriate cases of hedging all involve treating logoi as though they had the normative bearing of reasons. Second, the action-theoretic differences between reasons and logoi ground a principled explanation of why one may hedge when considering reasons but not when considering logoi. -/- Having made this argument, we then show how our approach to hedging is superior to the two approaches recently developed by Berislav Marušić and Stephen White. First, we show that their accounts give counter-intuitive results in some cases. Second, we argue that their accounts violate a plausible principle of interpersonal parity (i.e., they sometimes allow us to consider the faults of others while precluding us from considering our own faults). Finally, we argue that our account better explains how intuitions shift as we vary the details of cases. (shrink)

Anscombe famously said, “It is an insult and it may be an injury not to be believed.” But what is it to believe someone? My aim is to show that understanding what it is to believe someone requires a conception of a distinctive kind of interpersonal reasoning. To do so, I develop an analogy between interpersonal reasoning and an Anscombean conception of practical reasoning. I suggest that the distinctive ‘form’ of interpersonal reasoning is recognition. I furthermore argue that this is (...) to be understood as a primarily logical, rather than epistemological point. In concluding, I explain why a notion of interpersonal reasoning makes available an ethics of thought and, specifically, an account of testimonial injustice. (shrink)

A ‘no-ownership’ or ‘no-self theory’ holds that there is no proper subject of experience; the ownership of experience can only be accounted for by invoking a sub-personal entity. In the recent self-versus-no-self debate, it is widely assumed that the no-referent view of ‘I’, which is closely associated with Wittgenstein and G. E. M. Anscombe, implies a no-ownership theory of experience. I spell out this assumption with regard to both non-reflective and reflective consciousness and show that it is false. If the (...) so-called ‘self’ is an individual, the person, nothing more is required for the ownership of sensations than the non-reflective experiencing, undergoing, or suffering of them, whereas the sense of ‘ownership’ of reflective consciousness varies according to the type of ‘I’-thought in question. Ownership of ‘I’-thoughts about one’s own actions, for one thing, is a matter of being able to fit future actions to them or answer questions as to why one is doing what one does. (shrink)

This chapter interprets G. E. M. Anscombe’s discussion in §31 of Intention of the relationship between expressions of intention and descriptions of matters of fact. For Anscombe, a statement like “I’m raising my arm” or “I’m going to get up at 7:00”, which expresses an intention by saying what is happening or is going to happen, is contradicted only by an opposing command or the expression of an opposing intention. I first challenge an interpretation of this passage as claiming that (...) the truth of statements like these is somehow independent of whether the action they describe is actually performed. Against this reading, my preferred interpretation highlights the fact that Anscombe is speaking here only of what contradicts expressions of intention, while her position is that statements like these describe the world in ways that will be contrary to, and so truth-functionally incompatible with, any opposing statements of fact. (shrink)

The question of whether there is a distinct kind of practical truth has its source in Aristotle's claim that "[I]n the case of thought that is theoretical, and not practical nor productive, ‘well’ and ‘badly’ consist in the true and the false (that is, after all, the function of any faculty of thought), but that of a faculty of practical thought is truth in agreement with the correct appetite." (EN 6.2.1139a27-30) Although medieval philosophers do not share many of the presuppositions (...) common to contemporary philosophers and historians of ancient philosophy, they do share their puzzlement over the same Aristotelian texts. I will argue that both Thomas Aquinas and John Scotus shed light on the issue in that they avoid the more extreme positions of either severing practical truth from action entirely or of holding that the truth of practical statements is entirely different from our ordinary notions of truth. Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus plausibly understand Aristotle to hold that practical truth includes the ordinary truth and falsehood of statements. They also show that in addition to such truth and falsehood there must be some real or possible connection with appetite. Thomas interprets practical truth as importantly and essentially distinct from theoretical truth without arguing that it can be severed from the truth of statements, or that such truth primarily belongs to actions rather than statements. In contrast, Scotus’s account prefigures those contemporary accounts that make the actual connection to action in some way inessential to the practically true statement, even though on Scotus's account a kind of relation to the action is essential. Both accounts are reasonable and preferable to many contemporary accounts. (shrink)

In this paper I discuss aspects of Sartre’s philosophy in relation to contemporary approaches in analytic philosophy regarding self-consciousness and self-knowledge. In particular, I am interested in those approaches that take up certain considerations of Wittgenstein on transparency and immunity to error through misidentification in order to demystify our ability to make certain first-person claims without resorting to observation of ourselves. I will acknowledge the fruitfulness of such a dialogue between Sartre and Wittgenstein-inspired approaches but argue that it is restricted (...) to the insight that the concept of self-consciousness is a genuine one which is not to be mistaken for self-reference. It will also be shown that these approaches miss important aspects of Sartre’s philosophy, both exegetically and systematically. (shrink)

My aim in this paper is to investigate what enables human flourishing from a Thomistic perspective by considering Aquinas’ natural inclinations. I will argue that human beings flourish in different ways, depending on their practices. However, not every practice contributes to human flourishing, but only those that are consistent with human nature, which agents grasp through their natural inclinations. To support this argument, I will critically analyze MacIntyre’s account, referring mainly to his latest work (2016). MacIntyre has the merit of (...) highlighting the role of practices in human flourishing by considering the narrative dimension in the agents’ lives, but he fails to recognize the properly metaphysical framework of human nature, that would be provided by the proper consideration of natural inclinations. (shrink)

In this special issue, we present contributions that explore the significant influence of G.E.M. Anscombe’s philosophical insights on both philosophy and social science. Anscombe, a leading 20th-century philosopher, extensively addressed topics from metaphysics to morality, playing a key role in reviving Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy. Deeply influenced by Wittgenstein, she emphasized language analysis and argued that morality should be grounded in human life and practices, rather than abstract principles. This issue highlights how her work, particularly her account of intentional action and her (...) focus on the “grammar” of practical reasoning, offers valuable conceptual resources for analyzing social phenomena. The papers within this issue aim to bridge conceptual analysis with empirical inquiry, stimulating reflection among both philosophers and social scientists on how Anscombe’s thought can inform concrete research. (shrink)

The present collection of essays is dedicated to the work of Elizabeth Anscombe, in particular her work collected in the Anscombe Archive at the University of Pennsylvania. The collection brings together scholars working on Anscombe and her tradition, all of whom have significant expertise in Anscombe’s philosophical thought, with many having worked directly at the Archive. While a variety of perspectives on Anscombe’s thought are represented in the collection, including some vigorous scholarly disagreements, the contributing authors nevertheless share a commitment (...) to developing and deepening our understanding of her philosophical project and its contemporary relevance. (shrink)

G. E. M. Anscombe gave a lecture in 1970 on the shift in attitudes toward usury between medieval and modern times. Over the course of this lecture she says a great deal about the ontology of money. Although she seems less than completely aware of the fact, her discussion marks the difference between a Roman conception of money, according to which money’s proper use destroys it, and Marx’s analysis of capitalist money, which, like a cancer, can grow endlessly. I analyze (...) this discussion of money, identify some of its shortcomings, and connect Anscombe’s lecture to earlier, more familiar strands in her thought. (shrink)

According to G.E.M Anscombe’s paper ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’, modern moral philosophy has introduced a spurious concept of moral obligation, and has therefore made a mistake that the Greeks, and Aristotle in particular, avoided. Anscombe argues that the modern concepts of obligation, duty, and the moral ‘ought’ are the remnants of an earlier, but post-Aristotelian conception of ethics, and that they ought to be abandoned. An examination of Anscombe’s historical and philosophical claims shows that we have no reason to take them (...) seriously. In particular, they rest on a misinterpretation of Scholastic views on ‘ought’ and obligation. (shrink)

In this paper I discuss aspects of Sartre’s philosophy in relation to contemporary approaches in analytic philosophy regarding self-consciousness and self-knowledge. In particular, I am interested in those approaches that take up certain considerations of Wittgenstein on transparency and immunity to error through misidentification in order to demystify our ability to make certain first-person claims without resorting to observation of ourselves. I will acknowledge the fruitfulness of such a dialogue between Sartre and Wittgenstein-inspired approaches but argue that it is restricted (...) to the insight that the concept of self-consciousness is a genuine one which is not to be mistaken for self-reference. It will also be shown that these approaches miss important aspects of Sartre’s philosophy, both exegetically and systematically. (shrink)

In a series of early essays, beginning with "Must We Mean What We Say?", Stanley Cavell offers a sustained response to the argument that ordinary language philosophy is nothing more than amateur linguistics, carried out from the armchair -- so that philosophers' claims about "what we say", and what we mean when we say it, are necessarily in need of proper empirical support. The present paper provides a close reading of Cavell and a defense of his argument that, since a (...) philosopher's descriptions of our use of words are supposed to be an expression of *self*-knowledge, they do not require, and indeed cannot possibly find, any empirical justification. This does not guarantee that these descriptions are immune to error, nor does it mean they describe a different range of facts from the ones that are the subject-matter of linguistics and lexicography. Nor, finally, does it follow from this argument that observation of the facts of ordinary usage, as revealed e.g. in linguistic corpora, is of no use to the philosopher of ordinary language. I close with a brief discussion of what the shared nature of linguistic communication shows about how to understand the "we" in "what we say". (shrink)

This paper is an essay in what Austin (_Proc Aristotel Soc_ 57: 1–30, 1956–1957) called "linguistic phenomenology". Its focus is on showing how the grammatical features of ordinary causal verbs, as revealed in the kinds of linguistic constructions they can figure in, can shed light on the nature of the processes that these verbs are used to describe. Specifically, drawing on the comprehensive classification of English verbs founds in Levin (_English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation_, University of Chicago (...) Press, Chicago, 1993), I divide the forms of productive causal processes into five classes, corresponding to Aristotle's ontological categories: there are processes that cause change in location, in state, and in quantity; and that lead to the creation and destruction of substances. These broader categories are then subdivided into other ones, corresponding to different Levin classes, according to further differences in the causal processes they involve. I conclude by discussing the relevance of this argument to research in metaphysics and experimental philosophy. (shrink)

This chapter analyses several pages of handwritten notes in which G. E. M. Anscombe explores her disagreement with Wittgenstein’s view of the will and of moral value. While the notes are undated, there is strong textual evidence for dating them to a period no later than the mid-1950s: first, because elements in them parallel what Anscombe wrote about Wittgenstein in a pair of letters to The Tablet in 1954; and second, because lines from the notes are mirrored in both the (...) first edition of /Intention/, published in 1957 and deriving from lectures that Anscombe delivered in Hilary Term (January-March) of that year, and /An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus/, published in 1958 and deriving from lectures delivered in the Michaelmas (October-December) and Hilary Terms of 1957-1958. Because of this, the notes shed new light on the philosophical background to the conception of the will and of voluntary and intentional action that Anscombe works out in /Intention/—including the inspiration for her well-known formula, “I do what happens,” which appears verbatim in these notes. (shrink)

This thesis develops an account of ethics called the Linguistic Perspective, which is realist in a practical, non-theoretical sense, and is rooted Wittgenstein’s 'On Certainty'. On this account, normativity is intrinsic to human action and language; the norms of ethics are the logical limits of the most basic, unassailable concepts that practical reasoning requires for intelligibility. Part I lays the groundwork for this account by developing a Tractarian Reading of 'On Certainty'. Here, I contend that 'On Certainty' is primarily concerned (...) with the logical requirements and limits of language, and like the 'Tractatus' it develops these concerns in a realist direction. 'On Certainty', I argue, does so by advancing three key claims about logic: Everything descriptive of a language-game is part of logic; the boundary between logical and empirical propositions is not sharp; logic is founded on action. I investigate these claims, with particular emphasis on how natural human reactions provide logical conditions for the possibility of language. Hinge propositions, I argue, are rooted in these reactions; they point us to the limits of intelligibility of our concepts, though these limits are vague and inarticulable. In Part II, I discuss the practical syllogism and its validity. I argue that practical reasoning is distinct from theoretical reasoning and embodies a different standard of logical validity for inference. This standard is not strict and narrow, but creative and wide open; furthermore, it is an intrinsically ethical standard. Then, I advance my Linguistic Perspective on ethics, according to which human reactions provide the conditions for ethical normativity, just as they do for language. I argue that we can access ethical norms by reflecting on those linguistic concepts that are rooted in the most basic patterns of action, and by identifying the norms of behaviour that ensure the development of those concepts without contradiction. (shrink)

Is there a necessary connection between law and morality? Elizabeth Anscombe's theory of civil authority provides the basis for a unique intervention into this debate. Her distinction between the rights internal to a practice and the external justification of said practice avoids the traditional objections to both legal positivism and natural law theories.

Surprisingly little attention has been paid to the nature of conscious control. As a result, experiments suggesting that we lack conscious control over our actions cannot be properly evaluated. Joshua Shepherd (2015; 2021) aims to fill this gap. His proposal is grounded in the standard causalist account of action, according to which, simply put, bodily movements are controlled by the agent if and only if they are caused, in the right way, by the relevant psychological states. In this paper, I (...) argue that the proposal does not succeed in distinguishing between mere causation and actual control; it does not solve the problem of deviant causation. On the basis of my criticism, Anscombean action theory promises to offer a valuable perspective. It suggests that an important function of consciousness is to integrate an action into a rational whole. If this is on the right track, it supports Shepherd’s overall claim that the importance of consciousness for action control is often underestimated, because this contribution of consciousness may often go unnoticed in experimental settings. (shrink)

The idea of ‘connatural knowledge’ is attributed to Aquinas on the basis of passages in which he distinguishes between scientific and affective experiential knowledge of religious and moral truths. In a series of encyclicals beginning with Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris, popes have celebrated and commended Aquinas as the supreme guide in philosophy and theology and in some of these cited his discovery of connatural knowledge. The course and context of his ‘elevation’ are explored before proceeding to a discussion of moral (...) knowledge in which different forms of non-theoretical cognition are identified. This leads to an examination of work by Elizabeth Anscombe on the factuality of ethical judgement and connaturality. Aquinas and Anscombe offer important insights but more work remains to be done. Moral knowledge is a many-faceted thing. More accurately, it is not one thing but many things analogously related both by their modes and by their objects. (shrink)

Review of Lipscomb, B. J. B. (2021). The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Donald Davidson established causalism, i.e. the view that reasons are causes and that action explanation is causal explanation, as the dominant view within contemporary action theory. According to his “master argument”, we must distinguish between reasons the agent merely has and reasons she has and which actually explain what she did, and the only, or at any rate the best, way to make the distinction is by saying that the reasons for which an agent acts are causes of her action. (...) “Davidson's challenge” to non‐causalists is to come up with an alternative, more convincing, way of drawing the distinction. In this paper, I argue that G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright offer such an alternative. Moreover, I argue that Davidson's own account of interpretation makes no use of his causalist claim. (shrink)

Practical knowledge, in the sense made famous by G. E. M. Anscombe, is “the knowledge that a man has of his intentional actions”. This knowledge is very ordinary, but philosophically it is not easy to understand. One illuminating approach is to see practical knowledge as a kind of self-knowledge or self-consciousness. I offer an enrichment of this approach, by (1) exploiting Gilbert Ryle’s discussion of heeding (that is, paying attention), in particular paying attention to one’s own intentional action, and (2) (...) constructing and applying a practical analogue of Kant’s apperceptive “I think”. Combining (1) and (2), I offer an argument for my main claim—paying attention to what one is doing is an exercise of practical self-consciousness – it is how practical self-consciousness gets “schematized”. (shrink)

One of Elizabeth Anscombe’s most decisive legacies is the rejection of modern legalistic morality, in the name of a rescue of Aristotelian-inspired natural normativity. However, as I will argue in this contribution, this legacy does not seem to have been fully collected, neither by those who, like Philippa Foot, are explicitly inspired by Anscombe’s work, nor by those who, while apparently opposing its assumptions, have also somehow recovered it by different routes, as emblematically does Christine Korsgaard in her constitutivist proposal. (...) In more detail, I aim to explore the relationship between teleology and normativity at the crossroads between neo-Aristotelian naturalism and constitutivism: both theories, though opposed, rest normativity on a link between function (the Aristotelian ergon) and practical reason and fail precisely in declining this relationship convincingly. (shrink)

A central notion in Benjamin Lipscomb's narrative of the rise of the ‘Wartime Quartet’—Anscombe, Foot, Midgley, and Murdoch—is that of philosophical pictures (e.

A central idea in Anscombe's philosophy of action is that of practical knowledge, the formally distinctive knowledge a person has of what she is intentionally doing. Anscombe also discusses 'practical truth', an idea she borrows from Aristotle, and which on her interpretation is a kind of truth whose bearer is not thought or language, but action. What is the relationship between practical knowledge and practical truth? What we might call the 'Simple View' of this relationship holds that practical knowledge is (...) essentially knowledge of practical truth. But the Simple View isn't obviously available, since we have practical knowledge of all of our intentional actions, whereas an action manifests practical truth in Aristotle's sense only if it is a case of doing or living well. I suggest that we distinguish a thicker ethical version and a thinner action-theoretical version of each notion. This allows us to maintain a - complex - version of the Simple View, on which practical knowledge in the thick ethical sense is knowledge of practical truth in the thick ethical sense, and practical knowledge in the thin action-theoretical sense is knowledge of practical truth in the thin action-theoretical sense. Although Anscombe did not make these distinctions explicitly, I argue that she nevertheless commits herself to them in her discussion. (shrink)

-/- Did the US president who signed the order to use the atomic bomb stain his hands with blood or just ink? Are there cases in which a war is just? In such cases, is any war justifiable? Is ending the life of a terminally ill person different from murder? Do we need to agree on the definition of the embryo as a 'person' to know whether any action on the embryo is prohibited? Is the prohibition of contraception justified even (...) if it is perfectly legitimate to plan births? Anscombe, taking up Wittgenstein, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, elaborates a theory of action that places "intention" at the centre, an alternative to the conception of action dominant since Descartes. On this basis, he conducts an indictment against the superficiality of modern moral philosophy, lumping together the Oxford philosophers, utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. And finally, she puts her virtue ethics to work on problems of applied ethics: in the field of public ethics, the just war; in the field of bioethics, questions of the end of life and the beginning of life. This book, edited by Sergio Cremaschi, brings together Anscombe's contributions on ethical issues, allowing for the first time a comprehensive overview of this decisive figure's contribution to twentieth-century philosophy. (shrink)

Elizabeth Anscombe, Mary Midgley, Iris Murdoch and Philippa Foot all studied at Oxford University during the Second World War. One of their wartime tutors was Donald MacKinnon. This paper gives a broad overview of MacKinnon's philosophical outlook as it was developing at this time. Four talks from between 1938 and 1941—‘And the Son of Man That Thou Visiteth Him’ (1938), ‘What Is a Metaphysical Statement?’ (1940), ‘The Function of Philosophy in Education’ (1941) and ‘Revelation and Social Justice’ (1941)—give a foretaste (...) of the conception of moral philosophy that he later articulated in A Study of Ethical Theory (1957). We identify aspects of his philosophical outlook and unusual treatment of method that likely shaped his teaching. We trace his influence in the work of Midgley, Murdoch and Foot, all of whom studied with him from Trinity Term 1940 until their finals in 1942. In the case of Anscombe, though she was briefly his student—he taught her Plato—she and MacKinnon moved in shared intellectual circles, and there is reason to think that some of the forces that shaped MacKinnon's outlook also shaped hers. The sketch we offer is incomplete—in particular, we are not able to do justice to MacKinnon's explicitly theological writings—but we hope to achieve three things. First, to go some way towards indicating the importance of the teacher MacKinnon to understanding the work of his better-known pupils. Second, to introduce a philosopher for whom the teaching of philosophy, practical ethics and metaphysical theory were deeply entwined. Third, to reflect on the relationship between, on the one hand, a conception of the practice and significance of metaphysics and, on the other, a view on the role and nature of philosophical teaching and learning. (shrink)

In his reference letter for Murdoch’s 1947 fellowship application at Newnham College, Cambridge, her erstwhile Oxford undergraduate tutor, Donald MacKinnon, remarks that Murdoch is ‘on the threshold of creative work of a high order’. This chapter outlines the nature of that ‘creative work’ and its early development. We show how Murdoch’s close study of the Christian existentialist philosopher and playwright Gabriel Marcel (1883–1973) came to inflect both her early critique of Jean Paul Sartre’s existentialism and her first attempts to show (...) the limits of logical positivism. We explain how once at Cambridge, Murdoch’s exposure to Wittgenstein’s method, through her philosophical friendship with Elizabeth Anscombe, gave her the conceptual means to recast those aspects of Marcel’s thought (as well as those of Martin Buber) that she believed were important but, as she wrote in her application, ‘vague’. We show, finally, how both strands of Murdoch’s thinking are later brought into synchrony in the much-discussed example of M&D. This, in turn, allows us to isolate Murdoch’s understanding of the individual’s relation to their own ‘ghostly past’ and to reveal the importance of Murdoch’s early encounters with Anscombe and Marcel. (shrink)

In this essay, I argue that Valéry's poetic reflections offer valuable insights on the ancient (Aristotelian) ideal of beauty as perfection, which he rehabilitates and updates. I also show that these clarifications provide solutions to enduring aesthetic problems. To do this, I start from the modal vocabulary (necessary, possible, arbitrary) Valéry uses each time he wants to describe the relationship of an author to his composition. He therefore seems to have been deeply fascinated by the tension between the fact that (...) a creator is always free to compose what he wants, and the fact that the same creator wants his work or parts of it to be imposed on him, while he is in the midst of his creative process. Here comes into play the ideal in question, since the perfection of a work implies, among other things, that one cannot want to modify this work for the better (being already perfect). After a detour aiming to introduce the importance of the rules of composition and to refute the idea that this ideal would no longer have any relevance in a modern artistic perspective, I detail what could be called the "aesthetic holism" of Valéry, which retains from a work only its formal dimension, considered in an original way as a formal whole composed of other formal parts. It is therefore above all a form that must be perfected, against possible relative deprivations (lacks or defects). Then, I link (with the help of Wittgenstein) the modal vocabulary to this notion of form which, by posing compositional challenges, turns out to be essential to the understanding of beauty as perfection. -/- Dans cet essai, je soutiens que les réflexions poétiques de Valéry offrent des éclaircissements particulièrement précieux sur l’idéal ancien (Aristotélicien) de beauté comme perfection, qu’il réhabilite et réactualise. Je défends également l’idée que ces éclaircissements peuvent nous mettre sur la voie de solutions à des problèmes endurants de l’esthétique. Pour ce faire, je pars de l’usage remarquable que Valéry fait d’un vocabulaire modal (nécessaire, possible, arbitraire) chaque fois qu’il veut décrire de quelle manière un auteur se rapporte à sa composition. Il apparaît ainsi que ce qui a profondément retenu Valéry, c’est le dilemme ou la tension selon laquelle tout en étant libre de composer comme il l’entend (en laissant libre cours à sa fantaisie), un créateur aspire néanmoins à ce que son œuvre ou les parties de cette dernière s’imposent à lui, pendant qu’il crée. Ici entre en jeu l’idéal en question, car la perfection d’une œuvre implique entre autre chose que nous ne puissions vouloir modifier cette œuvre pour le mieux (celle-ci étant justement déjà parfaite). Après un détour visant à introduire l’importance des règles de composition et à réfuter l’idée que cet idéal n’aurait plus de pertinence dans une perspective artistique moderne, je détaille ce que l’on pourrait appeler le « holisme esthétique » de Valéry, qui ne retient de la composition d’une œuvre que sa dimension formelle, envisagée de manière originale comme une totalité faite d’autres parties formelles. C’est donc avant toute chose une forme qu’il faut parfaire, contre d’éventuelles privations relatives (manques ou défauts). Il s’agit alors de connecter (à l’aide de Wittgenstein) ce vocabulaire modale à cette notion de forme qui, en posant des enjeux de composition, se révèle indispensable à la compréhension de la beauté comme perfection. Après une défense à contretemps des traditions formelles dans la création (puisque ce sont de telles traditions qui constituent les ressources par lesquelles un individu libre et autonome peut vouloir, non seulement se faire l’héritier de ces traditions, mais aussi se montrer original et innovant), je termine en appliquant les idées de Valéry au débat qui a opposé un camp « généraliste » à un camp « particulariste » en matière de raisons esthétiques. (shrink)

Recent scholarship has focused on the provocative suggestion that there is a deep unity linking the philosophical projects of Iris Murdoch, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, and Mary Midgley. In addition to providing scholars with the opportunity to consider what these four shared, the unanimity story also offers an occasion to reflect on what is distinctive about each. Whereas Anscombe, Foot, and Midgley each turn to broadly Aristotelian resources for developing an alternative to the dominant non‐cognitivism of their day, Murdoch turns (...) to Platonic ones. The nature of Murdoch's Platonism, however, is not always well understood and has been identified as a “recurring question.” This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing attempt to understand Murdoch's distinctive, Platonic alternative to the ethical non‐cognitivism of her day. I contend that Murdoch's philosophical method, especially its transcendental elements, is an unexplored resource for better understanding the character of her Platonism as a modest one. (shrink)

The paper attempts to discuss two contrasting views on Aristotle’s notion of ‘virtue’ advocated by Immanuel Kant and G. E. M. Anscombe. Kant maintains that good will is the primary condition of moral action. It is the foundation of moral laws. Virtue is given the secondary status while describing the nature of moral conduct. On the contrary, Anscombe is critical of this Kantian normative approach to the virtue. In her contention, the Kantian deontology excludes the psychological conditions while theorizing morality. (...) This exclusion undermines not only the importance of virtue for the development of moral character, but also fails to judge motive and situation which are essential for investigating the intention of action. In conclusion, we would suggest that any overemphasis on rational construal of morality might restrict human freedom and thereby puts a veil on the basic content of humanity. (shrink)

Volume 30, Issue 6, December 2022, Page 1144-1146.

In “Causality and Determination”, Anscombe stressed that, in her view, physical determinism and free action were incompatible. As the relevant passage suggests, her espousal of incompatibilism was not merely due to specific features of human ‘ethical’ freedom, but due to general features of agency, intentionality, and voluntariness. For Anscombe went on to tentatively suggest that lack of physical determination was required for the intentional conduct of animals we would not classify as ‚free‘, too. In this paper, I examine three different (...) lines of argument to establish Anscombe’s latter suggestion, which are based on general considerations about the causal efficacy of psychological-agential phenomena, the nature of agency, and the specific features of intentional agency. I start with Anscombe’s own claim from “The Causation of Action” that microphysical determinism would make psychological and personal phenomena epiphenomenal, before I turn to the view of ‘Agency Incompatibilism’, that genuine agency requires the absence of antecedent necessitation, and, lastly, to concerns about some crucial features of intentional agency which we find in both human and animal agents. (shrink)