Explain and give examples illustrating the differences Bradley points out between ethical action being good for some result and ethical action being good in itself.
State and clarify the hidden presuppositions Bradley mentions to the question, "Why should I be moral?" Why does Bradley assert that to ask the question, "Why Be Moral?" is itself immoral, and what is his point in doing so?
Explain Bradley's argument concluding that if good is a means to something else, then good cannot be an end in itself.
On what basis does Bradley conclude the question why I should be moral rests upon a mistake? If the question of why be moral makes no sense, then what question, according to Bradley, should we be asking?
Explain Bradley's reasoning to support the conclusion that it is contradictory for anyone to claim immoral action is advantageous in life.
What are the reasons Bradley concludes morality is an end in itself?
Does Bradley believe it is possible to convince someone who claims (1) the use of reason cannot prove anything and (2) morality doesn't really matter in life, that doing the right thing is a necessary condition for happiness?
On what grounds does Bradley claim the purpose of acting morally is the self-realization of the individual?
Quoted in John Passmore, A Hundred Years of Philosophy, rev. ed. (New York: Basic Books, 1966), 60.
James W. Alland, "Bradley, F(rancis) H(erbert)," in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Robert Audi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 85.
F. H. Bradley, Ethical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1876), 58-84 passim.
|The Reading Selection from Ethical Studies|