Critical Review of Modern Moral Philosophy

MIDWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY






A CRITICAL REVIEW OF G.E.M ANSCOMBE'S
MODERN MORAL PHILOSOPHY







A CRITICAL REVIEW PAPER

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE

DR38405-01 WORLDVIEW AND ETHICAL THEORY






BY

CHRIS CARR, DMIN






KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
JANUARY 4, 2016
Introduction

Anscombe, G.E.M., "Modern Moral Philosophy," in Philosophy 33.124
(January 1958).

Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe, best known as an analytic philosopher, graduated from Oxford in 1941 and did post-graduate study at Cambridge, where she became a philosophy professor in 1970. In her younger years she was a student of Ludwig Wittgenstein. She was a life-long committed Roman Catholic believer. She coined the term consequentialism in 1958 and triggered renewed interest in value ethics in the West. She is responsible for multiple works and books, including Intention, On Brute Facts, An Introduction to Wittgenstein's Tractatus, Three Philosophers, Causality and Determination, and Times, Beginnings and Causes.

Synopsis
Anscombe's article is summarized in three theses statements at the beginning of the article (p. 1): "it is not profitable for us at present to do moral philosophy; that should be laid aside at any rate until we have an adequate philosophy of psychology, in which we are conspicuously lacking;" "concepts of obligation, and duty — moral obligation and moral duty, that is to say — and of what is morally right and wrong, and of the moral sense of "ought," ought to be jettisoned if this is psychologically possible, because they are survivals, or derivatives from survivals, from an earlier conception of ethics which no longer generally survives, and are only harmful without it;" "the differences between the well-known English writers on moral philosophy from Sidgwick to the present day are of little importance."
Anscombe introduced the term "consequentialism" in the article, thus
heavily influencing the revived modern field of virtue ethics, building upon an Aquinian foundation within the contemporary field of analytical Thomism. She is also known for her monograph Intention, as well as for compiling/editing the writings of Wittgenstein after his death.

Evaluation

On page two of her article, Anscombe writes "Butler exalts conscience, but appears ignorant that a man's conscience may tell him to the do the vilest things." One could take issue with this statement in that Anscombe does not clearly define 'conscience' and its properties/qualities. Some would defend conscience as that part of man which knows the difference between right and wrong and where conviction of sin occurs mentally and spiritually; therefore, conscience itself is a cognitive part of man, not merely or even substantially volitional and is not capable of 'vileness'.
Further, on page ten of her article, Anscombe states "whereas I should contend that a man is responsible for the bad consequences of his bad actions, but gets no credit for the good ones; and contrariwise is not responsible for the bad consequences of good actions." One could also take issue with this statement in that within an historical Biblical framework, we would not and should not be seeking 'credit' for any kind of action, as scripture makes clear that no one has any justifying credit before God except that provided by Jesus Himself via His death and resurrection. God alone is the arbiter of what is 'good' and 'bad' and has revealed that standard within the scriptures themselves and ultimately within the life and words of Jesus.
Third, the concept of consequentialism, carried to its logical (perhaps most extreme?) conclusion can be taken as an endorsement of the ethical-philosophical maxim known as the 'ends justifies the means'. Such a viewpoint is becoming more and more popular and accepted in contemporary American society and increasingly we are living with the negative (unintended) consequences of such selfish thinking, as previously-held and esteemed ethical standards, grounded in Jewish and Christian scripture, are jettisoned. Such thinking formed the basis for the atrocities of the WWII Holocaust and other daily occurrences of evil, both noticed and unnoticed, in this country and world. Further, there is far from unanimity among consequentialists as to what comprises 'moral goods', thus making the concept even more suspect. Until there is a substantial majority of consequentialist thinkers and practitioners who can give an objective basis to believe their views, the entire movement is dubious because of its relativity and lack of an objective base.
Next, Anscombe, mentioning an immediate need for a philosophy of

psychology rather than moral philosophy, then proceeds to offer us

absolutely nothing in its place to fill the void she points out. This is

disingenuous.

Last, Anscombe, perhaps somewhat unintentionally, accentuates the

crucial difference between the views of the modern English philosophers

and the Judeo-Christian worldview in her discussion of how they related to

consequentialism---the Jewish law, filled full by Jesus in His law of love and

grace and within His stressing of what was in the heart of a person and not

judging merely by that person's completed physical actions, had bedrock

and non-negotiable relational expectations from God, leading to a very high

moral ethic regardless of whatever consequences might threaten. It is this

very ethic, which focuses on propositional and revelational truth from God

and not upon either the character of any given human being or the intended

or unintended consequences that might bless or threaten the person, which

won the hearts and minds of individuals in the first century and continues to

this day.






1