Related Ideas

Review these ideas and then use the BACK key in your browser to return to the page you were on.

Fundamentality can be plausibly defined in many ways when we are discussing moral judgments, moral principles, and moral systems.

One possibility is mentioned in the source quotation from Richard Brandt. For Brandt, ethical differences are fundamental when people disagree ethically in spite of complete agreement about the facts of the case. William Frankena used a similar definition in his book Ethics.

But we might also define fundamentality in terms of the logical structure of an ethical system. Specific ethical judgments are based on higher level principles. The entire system might possibly be arranged so that all lower level principles and judgments can be derived from a small number of top level principles. These top level principles might be called fundamental. If we said that two moral systems differed fundamentally, it would mean that their top level principles differed.

Another possibility is that we might call fundamental the principles or judgments that people are least willing to violate or give up. For example, if someone were faced with the choice between stealing and prostitution, he or she might choose to steal. In that case, the prohibition on prostitution might be called more fundamental. The principles and judgments held until the end would be the most fundamental of all.

Can you think of other plausible ways to define fundamentality?