Roger Crisp on Derek Parfit's place in British moral philosophy

In this interview with documentary maker Michael Parfit, Professor Roger Crisp (Philosophy, Oxford) talks about Derek Parfit's place in British moral philosophy.

[adamsimon]

Very strange to hear Crisp describe deontology and utilitarianism as of the same stripe. On the one hand, as I remember it, the primary locus of moral questions for both families of view is atomistic: it is what a particular agent should do at a particular time, rather than say, what kind of person one should be, or what collective structure should society realize. Still, I would think that deontology sets constraints on (which actions someone can undertake or omit in) pursuit of the “good”—however that is fleshed out, while utilitarianism would say that there are no such constraints (just a further specification of what “the good” comes to). I understand that Parfit’s later project was to see these traditions as having on surface level differences, but that’s quite a bold position, and one that requires serious and extensive argument to make out. I’m not familiar with Crisp’s work, but recognize the name and know that he’s no YouTube amateur. Which is why I find the casual claim all the more surprising.

[mb]

Super interesting video thank you. But I'd like to make a correction or ask a question. When professor Crisp says that in Sidgwick's view, moral philosophy is a debate between 3 moral positions (egoism, deontology and utilitarianism), what does he mean by deontology? Because in The Methods of Ethics Sidgwick talks about Intuitionism, not deontology and I would say that intuitionism in the way Sidgwick talks about it is different then deontology. (Though I'm not an expert, so I might be mistaken)

Sidgwick talks about Kant in this part of the book, but talks about a plurality of possible intuitions which would be the basis of ethics, that's why I believe there is a distinction.