Types of Ethical Theory

[9thdoctor]

I can’t give you a better idea of the way things stood than by telling you that the book she’d given me to read was called “Types of Ethical Theory”, and that when I opened it at random I struck a page beginning:

The postulate or common understanding involved in speech is certainly co-extensive, in the obligation it carries, with the social organism of which language is the instrument, and the ends of which it is an effort to subserve.

All perfectly true, no doubt; but not the sort of thing to spring on a lad with a morning head.

…

“You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound.”

Reginald Jeeves

…

“Types of Ethical Theory” caught my eye. I opened it, and I give you my honest word this was what hit me:

Of the two antithetic terms in the Greek philosophy one only was real and self-subsisting; and that one was Ideal Thought as opposed to that which it has to penetrate and mould. The other, corresponding to our Nature, was in itself phenomenal, unreal, without any permanent footing, having no predicates that held true for two moments together; in short, redeemed from negation only by including indwelling realities appearing through

Well-I mean to say-what? And Nietzsche, from all accounts, a lot worse than that!

P.G. Wodehouse, Jeeves Takes Charge, quoted gobbledygook presumably from Martineau’s Types of Ethical Theory.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ0XAQCeR_M&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ0XAQCeR_M&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ0XAQCeR_M&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[George H. Smith]

James Martineau's Types of Ethical Theory (2 vols., 3rd ed. 1891) is worth reading, but it's not exactly easy going.

A book with a similar title is the much shorter and beautifully written classic by C.D. Broad, Five Types of Ethical Theory (1930). Broad devotes an entire chapter to the moral theory of Joseph Butler, a philosopher I discussed earlier in regard to his critique of psychological egoism, so those who don't want to consult the original source can find an excellent summary in Broad's book. The four other philosophers that Broad focuses on are Spinoza, Hume, Kant, and Sidgwick.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

James Martineau's Types of Ethical Theory (2 vols., 3rd ed. 1891) is worth reading, but it's not exactly easy going.

I haven’t read it, but I’m sure it’s not the book for Bertie Wooster, morning head or no. Unsuitable, as Jeeves (who prefers Spinoza and the “great Russians”) puts it. P.G. Wodehouse probably did have it on his shelf, he was clearly quite learned. He even got an honorary doctorate from Oxford, and that was not by making a financial contribution.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VGItt9cCgc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VGItt9cCgc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VGItt9cCgc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Chris Grieb]

Thanks for posting this item. I enjoy Hugh Laurie as Bertie Wooster than I do as House.

[9thdoctor]

Thanks for posting this item. I enjoy Hugh Laurie as Bertie Wooster than I do as House.

I’m a big fan of the books, the TV show, the works. I even started a piece making the case that Wodehouse’s implicit philosophy was that of Epicurus, exploring evidence and implications. It was going to take more work to make a good (and interesting) case, and by now I’ve cannibalized good parts of it in various other posts.

As for Hugh Laurie, he mostly played foppish characters when he was young, now he’s the ideal villain. I like House well enough, I’m not into medical shows but here I make an exception. BTW his novel is really good, The Gun Seller.

I wish there was more of Jeeves and Wooster, but they adapted about 80% of the material, so they maybe could have squeezed out another season, but that’s all water under the bridge. The short story “The Great Sermon Handicap” is one I particularly wish they’d done.

This song is originally from A Bit of Fry and Laurie, the pilot episode to be specific, but I like this performance a little better.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>