The Thomistic Institute Understanding Anscombe’s Absolutism – Prof. Marshall Bierson
Jan 20, 2026
Prof. Marshall Bierson, an ethics expert at the Catholic University of America, explores Elizabeth Anscombe’s moral absolutism. He argues that philosophical questions can often be grammatically confused, which obscures the nature of moral absolutes. Bierson highlights the tension between consequentialism and absolutism, using examples like the Trolley Problem and chess rules to illustrate his points. He emphasizes Anscombe’s distinction between reasons and logoi, revealing how moral language shapes our understanding of constraints and justifications.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
The Question That Misframes Absolutism
- Asking "why is it worse to kill one than let five die?" is a grammatically confused question according to Marshall Bierson summarizing Anscombe.
- The question misframes moral absolutes by forcing them into consequentialist reasoning they do not belong to.
Reasons Versus Logoi
- Anscombe draws a formal distinction between 'reasons' and 'logoi' (rules that rule out options).
- 'Logoi' are not one bad consequence among others but delimit which actions you may even consider.
Grammar Reveals Moral Sense
- Anscombe follows Wittgenstein: grammar shows which questions are nonsensical and clarifies concepts.
- Examining ill-formed questions often reveals deeper structure of moral language.
