This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
14 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
  1. Skelton Anthony (2002). Review of Robert Myers Self-Governance and Cooperation. [REVIEW] Utilitas 14 (1):128-130.
  2. Giovanni De Grandis (2003). La Giustizia E Il Bene. Teoria Politica (2-3):341-369.
    In this article an attempt is made of presenting the deontological feature of A Theory of Justice under a new light. Through an exploration of the meaning of the priority of the good over the right and of the significance and function of the argument of the congruence between justice and individual good, the differences between teleology and deontology are displayed. Deontology seems to have several advantages: a) it allows for pluralism of values and a richer and deeper understanding of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Jasper Doomen (2010). Review of C. Korsgaard, Self-Constitution. [REVIEW] Dialogue 49 (2):317-322.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. John Kohls & Sandra L. Christensen (2002). The Business Responsibility for Wealth Distribution in a Globalized Political-Economy: Merging Moral Economics and Catholic Social Teaching. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 35 (3):223 - 234.
    If it is accepted that the real marketplace does not necessarily distribute wealth in the manner that the ideal market would have done, and that societal institutions have an obligation to bring the real and ideal market distributions into accord, then it can be argued that economic actors have a responsibility to consider the effects of their activities on the distribution of wealth in society. This paper asserts that businesses have a responsibility to consider the wealth distribution effects of their (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Piotr T. Makowski (2007). Nowa filozofia moralności. Hybris 5.
  6. Rekha Nath (2011). Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right: A Critique of Virginia Held’s Deontological Justification of Terrorism. Social Theory and Practice 37 (4):679-696.
    Virginia Held argues that terrorism can be justified in some instances. But unlike standard, consequentialist justifications, hers is deontological. This paper critically examines her argument. It explores how the values of fairness, responsibility, and desert can serve to justify acts of terrorism. In doing so, two interpretations of her account are considered: a responsibility-insensitive and a responsibility-sensitive interpretation. On the first, her argument collapses into a consequentialist justification. On the second, it relies on an implausible conception of responsibility. Either way, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Howard Nye (2013). Objective Double Effect and the Avoidance of Narcissism. In Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Volume 3. Oxford University Press 260-286.
    The Doctrine of Double Effect [DDE] states roughly that it is harder to justify causing or allowing harm as a means to an end than it is to justify conduct that results in harm as a side effect. This chapter argues that a theory of deontological constraints on harming needs something like the DDE in order to avoid the charge that it reflects a narcissistic obsession with the cleanliness of our own hands. Unfortunately, the DDE is often interpreted as maintaining (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Howard Nye, David Plunkett & John Ku (2015). Non-Consequentialism Demystified. Philosophers' Imprint 15 (4).
    Morality seems important, in the sense that there are practical reasons — at least for most of us, most of the time — to be moral. A central theoretical motivation for consequentialism is that it appears clear that there are practical reasons to promote good outcomes, but mysterious why we should care about non-consequentialist moral considerations or how they could be genuine reasons to act. In this paper we argue that this theoretical motivation is mistaken, and that because many arguments (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Tamar Schapiro (2006). Kantian Rigorism and Mitigating Circumstances. Ethics 117 (1):32–57.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  10. Tamar Schapiro (2003). Compliance, Complicity, and the Nature of Nonideal Conditions. Journal of Philosophy 100 (7):329-355.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  11. Anthony Skelton (2002). Review of Robert Myers, Self-Governance and Cooperation. [REVIEW] Utilitas 14 (1):128-130.
    A critical review of Robert Myers Self-Governance and Cooperation.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Rob van Someren Greve (2011). Wishful Thinking in Moral Theorizing: Comment on Enoch. Utilitas 23 (04):447-450.
    David Enoch recently defended the idea that there are valid inferences of the form ‘it would be good if p, therefore, p’. I argue that Enoch's proposal allows us to infer the absurd conclusion that ours is the best of all possible worlds.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13. Kenneth R. Westphal (2010). Practical Reason: Categorical Imperative, Maxims, Laws. In W. Dudley & K. Engelhard (eds.), Kant: Key Concepts. Acumen
    This chapter considers the centrality of principles in Kant’s moral philosophy, their distinctively ‘Kantian’ character, why Kant presents a ‘metaphysical’ system of moral principles and how these ‘formal’ principles are to be used in practice. These points are central to how Kant thinks pure reason can be practical. These features have often puzzled Anglophone readers, in part due to focusing on Kant’s Groundwork, to the neglect of his later works in moral philosophy, in which the theoretical preliminaries of that first (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Kenneth R. Westphal (1997). Do Kant’s Principles Justify Property or Usufruct? Jahrbuch für Recht Und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5:141-194.
    Kant’s justification of possession appears to beg the question (petitio principii) by assuming rather than proving the legitimacy of possession. The apparent question-begging in Kant’s argument has been recapitulated or exacerbated but not resolved in the secondary literature. A detailed terminological, textual, and logical analysis of Kant’s argument reveals that he provides a sound justification of limited rights to possess and use things (qualified choses in possession), not of private property rights. Kant’s argument is not purely a priori; it is (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations