|
" The moral fool : "
Hans-Georg Moeller
| Document Type
|
:
|
BL
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
625617
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
dltt
|
| Main Entry
|
:
|
Moeller, Hans-Georg,1964-
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
The moral fool : : a case for amorality /\ Hans-Georg Moeller
|
| Publication Statement
|
:
|
New York :: Columbia University Press,, c2009
|
| Page. NO
|
:
|
x, 212 p. ;; 21 cm
|
| ISBN
|
:
|
9780231145084
|
|
|
:
|
: 9780231145091
|
|
|
:
|
9780231519243
|
|
|
:
|
: 023114508x
|
|
|
:
|
: 0231145098
|
|
|
:
|
0231519249
|
| Bibliographies/Indexes
|
:
|
Includes bibliographical references (p. [189]-201) and index
|
| Contents
|
:
|
Is it good to be good? -- On amorality. The moral fool ; Negative ethics A pathology of ethics. The redundancy of ethics ; The "morality of anger" ; Ethics and aesthetics ; The presumptions of philosophical ethics ; The myth of moral progress -- Ethics in contemporary society. For the separation of morality and law ; Morality and civil rights ; How to get a death verdict ; Masters of war ; Ethics and the mass media -- Applied amorality
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
An expert on Eastern philosophies and social systems theory, Hans-Georg Moeller questions the perceived goodness of morality and those who claim morality is inherently positive. Critiquing the ethical "fanaticism" of Western moralists, such as Immanuel Kant, Lawrence Kohlberg, John Rawls, and the utilitarians, Moeller points to the absurd fundamentalisms and impracticable prescriptions arising from definitions of good. Instead he advances a theory of "moral foolishness," or moral asceticism, extracted from the "amoral" philosophers of East Asia and such thinkers as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Niklas Luhman. The moral fool doesn't understand why ethics are necessarily good, and he isn't convinced that the moral perspective is always positive. In this way he is like most people, and Moeller defends this foolishness against ethical pathologies that support the death penalty, just wars, and even Jerry Springer's crude moral theater. Comparing and contrasting the religious philosophies of Christianity, Daoism, and Zen Buddhism, Moeller presents a persuasive argument in favor of amorality
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Social ethics
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Moral conditions
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Social values
|
| LC Classification
|
:
|
HM665.M633 2009
|
| |