Why Prichard Thinks Moral Philosophy Rests on a Mistake
This paper examines H.A. Prichard's influential 1912 argument that moral philosophy rests on a fundamental mistake. Prichard contends that traditional moral theory errs by grounding moral obligation in motive, utility, or the recognition of intrinsic goodness. The paper traces his critique of Utilitarian thought, his engagement with the Theory of Knowledge, and his challenge to Kantian ethics. By analyzing Prichard's claim that the rightness of an action is independent of its motive, the paper clarifies why he believes conventional moral philosophy fails to provide a sound basis for distinguishing right from wrong.
- Introduction to Prichard's Challenge: Prichard's claim that moral philosophy is fundamentally mistaken
- Moral Obligation and the Theory of Knowledge: Duty, personal satisfaction, and the Theory of Knowledge
- The Utilitarian Account and Its Limits: Utilitarian recognition of good as basis for action
- Rightness, Motive, and the Core Mistake: Why rightness must be independent of motive
- Kant and Intrinsic Goodness: Kant's view that good is grounded in right
- Conclusion: Restatement of Prichard's central philosophical mistake
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It stays closely focused on Prichard's original 1912 text, using direct quotations to support each analytical point rather than relying on paraphrase alone.
- The paper traces a clear logical thread: obligation is misgrounded in motive, motive cannot establish rightness, therefore moral philosophy as conventionally practiced rests on a mistake.
- It brings in comparative perspectives — Utilitarianism and Kant — to show how Prichard's critique extends beyond a single tradition.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates textual analysis through selective quotation: each major claim is anchored to a specific passage from Prichard's essay, allowing the argument to build from the primary source outward rather than imposing an external framework onto the text.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by stating Prichard's central thesis, then develops his critique in three stages — the problem of obligation and knowledge, the Utilitarian failure, and the independence of rightness from motive — before briefly addressing Kant and closing with a restatement of the mistake. Each section is short and focused, making the essay accessible while covering the main threads of Prichard's argument.
Introduction to Prichard's Challenge
Prichard believes that moral philosophy rests on a mistake for a variety of reasons. Moral theory in essence attempts to define whether people can distinguish right from wrong. When a person performs any action, that action must logically result from a motivating factor or thought process. Moral worth and philosophy are determined by the motive of a person, and consequently rest on a mistake — because the concept of good and evil, or right versus wrong, according to H.A. Prichard, should not rest on motive.
Prichard questions what, as a people, we are "really going to learn by Moral Philosophy" and states that the "aim of the subject" of moral philosophy is obscure (Prichard, 1912). He believes that the subject of moral philosophy as typically defined and understood by society rests on a mistake that is parallel to a subject called the "theory of knowledge" (Prichard, 1912).
References
Prichard, H.A. "Does Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake?" Mind, N.S. Vol. 21, 1912.
"Morality." Retrieved December 15, 2003.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.