Wikisource Page Game (step-by-step pagelist builder)
Open in Book2Scroll
Open file in BookReader
Purge file

Index:Ethical Studies (reprint 1911).djvu

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Title Ethical Studies
Author F. H. Bradley
Year 1911
Publisher G. E. Stechert & Co.
Location New York
Source djvu
Progress Proofread—All pages of the work proper are proofread, but not all are validated
Transclusion Fully transcluded
OCLC 729933088
Pages (key to Page Status)

Front matter:

       
CONTENTS.
ESSAY I.
      page
  1

Object of the inquiry (1-3). The common notion of Responsibility (3-8); irreconcileable with ‘Freedom’ (8-12); and with rational prediction (13-17). Ground of the objection to rational prediction (17-22). Common opinion and Necessitarianism (22-24). Irreconcileable as to Punishment and Responsibility (24-30). Reason of this twofold (30-37).

       

Note A. Compulsion and Responsibility (39). Note B. Character how far fixed (46).
Note C. Freedom (50).

 
ESSAY II.
 
  WHY SHOULD I BE MORAL?     .    .    .   53

Question rests on a dogmatic preconception (53-56); which is opposed to the moral consciousness (56-57); and is unreasonable (58-59). The End is self-realization (59); as is shown from morality (60); and from psychological considerations (61-62). It means realizing self as a whole (63-67); and an infinite whole (67-74).

       
 
ESSAY III.
 
  PLEASURE FOR PLEASURE’S SAKE,     .    .    .   78

Happiness a vague phrase (78-79). Common opinion on pleasure (79-80). Hedonism irreconcileable with morality (81-85). Illusory nature of the Hedonistic end (86-89). My pleasure as the end gives no rule of life (90-94). And the pleasure of all is illusory (94-95); opposed to morality (96); and gives no practical guidance (96-101); it is dogmatically postulated (101-103); and irreconcileable with Hedonistic psychology (103-105). Further modifications of Hedonism. Qualitative distinction of pleasures is, in both its forms, untenable (106-111). Further criticism on Mill’s view (111-112). Results (113-114).

       
       
ESSAY IV.
      page
  DUTY FOR DUTY’S SAKE,     .    .    .   128

The end is the Good Will (128-129). This is the universal form (130-131). What ‘ought’ means (131-132). Principle of non-contradiction (133). This contradicts itself (134-136). Duty and duties (137-138). Psychological objection (138-139). Practical uselessness of non-contradiction (139-141). Collision of duties unavoidable (141-143).

 
ESSAY V.
 
  MY STATION AND ITS DUTIES,     .    .    .   145

Present result (145-146). Advance to a higher point of view (146-148). Individualism criticized (148-156). The end is realization as member of a community (157). The moral organism seems to be the solution of ethical problems (158-166). Satisfactoriness of this view (166-171). Relative and absolute morality (171-174). Intuitive character of moral judgments (174-180). Morality not a mere private matter (180-183). Criticism of the above view (183-186).

       
 
ESSAY VI.
 
  IDEAL MORALITY,     .    .    .   193

No limit to the moral sphere (193-197). Content of the ideal self (198-203). Collisions of moral elements (203-206). Morality not simply equal to self-realization (206). What it is (206-212). Difficulties as to its nature (212-220). In what sense is it approximative? (220-225).

 
ESSAY VII.
 
  SELFISHNESS AND SELF-SACRIFICE,     .    .    .   226

Statement and refutation of the argument for general selfishness, which is founded on the confusion as to ‘motive’ (227-235). What is the idea of a pleasure? (236). Psychological genesis of the voluptuary (237-245). What selfishness is (245-247). General problem of the good and bad self (247-248). Hereditary theory insufficient (249). Content of good and bad selves (250). Genesis of the good self (251-261). Genesis of the bad self (261-265). Origin of morality proper (265-271). Nature of the morally good and bad selves (271-275). What self-sacrifice is (276).

 
 
  CONCLUDING REMARKS,     .    .    .   279