Abstract:
In this thesis, I draw a comparison between the moral philosophies and ethics of Philippa Foot and Charles Taylor. Foot is perhaps best known for her contribution to neo-Aristotelian ‘virtue ethics’, including her influential work on the meanings of moral concepts and the rationality of moral action. While Taylor is better known as a social and political theorist, I am more interested in his studies of language and human agency, especially as these connect with the more traditional concerns of philosophical ethics and practical philosophy. A key point of tension between the two accounts appears in Foot’s later naturalistic turn, which seems to constrast sharply with Taylor’s interpretive, and strongly anti-naturalistic, approach. In what follows I will explore the various facets of this apparent disagreement. I argue that there is a robust agreement between the two standpoints despite the surface appearances.