G. E. M. Anscombe: Modern Moral Philosophy
Anscombe argues that the moral philosophy of the past several hundred years has rested on serious confusions, so much so that it is not currently profitable to do moral philosophy. She begins by providing brief critiques of a number of important moral philosophers, including Butler, Hume, Kant, Bentham, and Mill. Although she raises different objections for each of these views, she claims that a common problem for all modern moral theories is that they invoke the concept of moral obligation. Anscombe points out that ancient philosophers such as Aristotle had no such concept, and argues that the concept is one we inherited from the divine law conception of ethics prevalent in Christianity. Anscombe notes that without this foundation (which is no longer endorsed by most moral philosophers), talk of moral obligations retains some psychological effect, but no longer picks out a coherent concept. Instead of basing our ethical theories on the notion of moral obligation, Anscombe recommends a return to the ancient approach of thinking about the virtues. Even in the absence of divine law, we can still sensibly describe actions as untruthful or unjust. This approach, however, must wait until we have an adequate philosophy of psychology, which tells us what makes certain traits virtues, which itself will require analyzing related concepts such as action, intention, and pleasure.
Anscombe also criticizes the British moral philosophy of her time. She claims that every British moral philosopher since Sidgwick has denied that there are certain actions that can never be right, regardless of their consequences. Against this, Anscombe claims that it is always forbidden to kill an innocent person, even if doing so would bring about good consequences - e.g., by saving several others. The plausibility of absolutism thus gives us another good reason to adopt a virtue-based account of ethics: Although someone might claim that it is sometimes morally right to kill an innocent person, no one would deny that it is unjust to do so.
-Anscombe claims that Aristotelian ethics deals with borderline cases:

Question

G. E. M. Anscombe: Modern Moral Philosophy
Anscombe argues that the moral philosophy of the past several hundred years has rested on serious confusions, so much so that it is not currently profitable to do moral philosophy. She begins by providing brief critiques of a number of important moral philosophers, including Butler, Hume, Kant, Bentham, and Mill. Although she raises different objections for each of these views, she claims that a common problem for all modern moral theories is that they invoke the concept of moral obligation. Anscombe points out that ancient philosophers such as Aristotle had no such concept, and argues that the concept is one we inherited from the divine law conception of ethics prevalent in Christianity. Anscombe notes that without this foundation (which is no longer endorsed by most moral philosophers), talk of moral obligations retains some psychological effect, but no longer picks out a coherent concept. Instead of basing our ethical theories on the notion of moral obligation, Anscombe recommends a return to the ancient approach of thinking about the virtues. Even in the absence of divine law, we can still sensibly describe actions as untruthful or unjust. This approach, however, must wait until we have an adequate philosophy of psychology, which tells us what makes certain traits virtues, which itself will require analyzing related concepts such as action, intention, and pleasure.
 Anscombe also criticizes the British moral philosophy of her time. She claims that every British moral philosopher since Sidgwick has denied that there are certain actions that can never be right, regardless of their consequences. Against this, Anscombe claims that it is always forbidden to kill an innocent person, even if doing so would bring about good consequences - e.g., by saving several others. The plausibility of absolutism thus gives us another good reason to adopt a virtue-based account of ethics: Although someone might claim that it is sometimes morally right to kill an innocent person, no one would deny that it is unjust to do so.
-Anscombe claims that Aristotelian ethics deals with borderline cases:

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of G. E. M. Anscombe: Modern Moral Philosophy
Anscombe argues that the moral philosophy of the past several hundred years has rested on serious confusions, so much so that it is not currently profitable to do moral philosophy. She begins by providing brief critiques of a number of important moral philosophers, including Butler, Hume, Kant, Bentham, and Mill. Although she raises different objections for each of these views, she claims that a common problem for all modern moral theories is that they invoke the concept of moral obligation. Anscombe points out that ancient philosophers such as Aristotle had no such concept, and argues that the concept is one we inherited from the divine law conception of ethics prevalent in Christianity. Anscombe notes that without this foundation (which is no longer endorsed by most moral philosophers), talk of moral obligations retains some psychological effect, but no longer picks out a coherent concept. Instead of basing our ethical theories on the notion of moral obligation, Anscombe recommends a return to the ancient approach of thinking about the virtues. Even in the absence of divine law, we can still sensibly describe actions as untruthful or unjust. This approach, however, must wait until we have an adequate philosophy of psychology, which tells us what makes certain traits virtues, which itself will require analyzing related concepts such as action, intention, and pleasure.
 Anscombe also criticizes the British moral philosophy of her time. She claims that every British moral philosopher since Sidgwick has denied that there are certain actions that can never be right, regardless of their consequences. Against this, Anscombe claims that it is always forbidden to kill an innocent person, even if doing so would bring about good consequences - e.g., by saving several others. The plausibility of absolutism thus gives us another good reason to adopt a virtue-based account of ethics: Although someone might claim that it is sometimes morally right to kill an innocent person, no one would deny that it is unjust to do so.
-Anscombe claims that Aristotelian ethics deals with borderline cases: