4.8 • 729 Ratings
🗓️ 4 April 2025
⏱️ 46 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Prof. Marshall Bierson explores Aquinas's and Anscombe's moral absolutes, particularly concerning theft, arguing that in cases of extreme need, taking another's property may not constitute theft, suggesting a nuanced approach to absolutist moral frameworks.
This lecture was given on March 3rd, 2025, at Yale University.
For more information on upcoming events, visit us at thomisticinstitute.org/upcoming-events.
About the Speaker: Marshall Bierson—a Foreign Service brat—grew up living in Bangladesh, Paraguay, Sri Lanka, and the D.C. suburbs. He received at B.A. at Wheaton College (IL) in 2014, and then earned his Ph.D. in philosophy from Florida State University in 2022. His research focuses on the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Dr. Bierson is particularly interested in the work of Elizabeth Anscombe on 'philosophical psychology.'
Keywords: Absolutism in Ethics, Moral Philosophy, Consequentialism vs. Absolutism, Elizabeth Anscombe, Peter Singer's Famine Affluence and Morality, Justice and Property Rights, Moral Absolutes, Sidgwick's Ethics, Starving Man Scenario, Thomas Aquinas on Theft
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
0:00.0 | Welcome to the Tomistic Institute podcast. |
0:06.2 | Our mission is to promote the Catholic intellectual tradition in the university, the church, and the wider public square. |
0:13.1 | The lectures on this podcast are organized by university students at Temistic Institute chapters around the world. |
0:19.5 | To learn more and to attend these events, visit us at to mystic institute.org. |
0:25.0 | So, like any talk I give, it's not on the main philosopher I study, Elizabeth Anscom. |
0:30.4 | I'm going to start by talking about Elizabeth Anscombe, who has a very famous paper. |
0:35.0 | She published in the 1950s called Modern Moral Philosophy, |
0:38.2 | in which she wants to encourage a revitalization of a certain both Aristotelian and Tomistic |
0:44.8 | approach to moral philosophy over and against what she saw as the dominant strains of ethical |
0:50.4 | thought that had become prominent in really the philosophy of ethical work as it developed |
0:55.1 | in the UK since Sidrick. And one really distinctive thing, she thought, was the way in which |
1:02.6 | this new approach to ethics denied the existence of what we might call moral absolutes, |
1:07.8 | denied that there is any type of action, whether that be lying or theft or the intentional |
1:13.7 | killing of the innocent, which are simply in virtue of the kind of action it is, absolutely ruled |
1:19.7 | off, ruled out as a possible action, wrong, no matter what the consequences would be. She contrasted |
1:26.7 | this with what she regarded as |
1:28.7 | consequentialism, a term that has somewhat drifted in meaning since she coined it originally in the |
1:32.8 | 50s, but that essentially involves the claim that an action could, no matter what the nature |
1:39.0 | of the action is, be justified if the consequences were serious enough. Now, to give you a sense for how this has continued, |
1:46.8 | even to today, a contemporary Deontologist whose work is quite good, Seth Lozor, he's out in Australia |
1:52.1 | right now, he published a recent article in which he explains his choice for not discussing |
1:57.8 | absolutist theories of deontology, and he says, I know of only one deontological philosopher working on ethics of harm who professed to be an absolutist. |
... |
Transcript will be available on the free plan in 9 days. Upgrade to see the full transcript now.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Thomistic Institute, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of The Thomistic Institute and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.