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:
10 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek & Peter Singer (2010). Secrecy in Consequentialism: A Defence of Esoteric Morality. Ratio 23 (1):34-58.
    Sidgwick's defence of esoteric morality has been heavily criticized, for example in Bernard Williams's condemnation of it as 'Government House utilitarianism.' It is also at odds with the idea of morality defended by Kant, Rawls, Bernard Gert, Brad Hooker, and T.M. Scanlon. Yet it does seem to be an implication of consequentialism that it is sometimes right to do in secret what it would not be right to do openly, or to advocate publicly. We defend Sidgwick on this issue, and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Ben Eggleston (2013). Rejecting The Publicity Condition: The Inevitability of Esoteric Morality. Philosophical Quarterly 63 (250):29-57.
    It is often thought that some version of what is generally called the publicity condition is a reasonable requirement to impose on moral theories. In this article, after formulating and distinguishing three versions of the publicity condition, I argue that the arguments typically used to defend them are unsuccessful and, moreover, that even in its most plausible version, the publicity condition ought to be rejected as both question-begging and unreasonably demanding.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Fred Feldman (1980). The Principle of Moral Harmony. Journal of Philosophy 77 (3):166-179.
  4. Brad Hooker, Publicity in Morality.
    Consider the idea that moral rules must be suitable for public acknowledgement and acceptance, i.e., that moral rules must be suitable for being ‘widely known and explicitly recognized’, suitable for teaching as part of moral education, suitable for guiding behaviour and reactions to behaviour, and thus suitable for justifying one’s behaviour to others. This idea is now most often associated with John Rawls, who traces it back through Kurt Baier to Kant.[1] My book developing ruleconsequentialism, Ideal Code, Real World, accepted (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Klemens Kappel (1999). Has Dancy Shown a Problem in Consequentialism? Theoria 65 (2-3):193-211.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. William L. Langenfus (1989). Implications of a Self-Effacing Consequentialism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 27 (4):479-493.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Paul K. Moser (1991). Consequentialism and Self-Defeat. Philosophical Quarterly 41 (162):82-85.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Toby Ord, Consequentialism and Decision Procedures.
    Consequentialism is often charged with being self-defeating, for if a person attempts to apply it, she may quite predictably produce worse outcomes than if she applied some other moral theory. Many consequentialists have replied that this criticism rests on a false assumption, confusing consequentialism’s criterion of the rightness of an act with its position on decision procedures. Consequentialism, on this view, does not dictate that we should be always calculating which of the available acts leads to the most good, but (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Peter Singer & Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek (2010). Secrecy in Consequentialism: A Defence of Esoteric Morality. Ratio 23 (1):34-58.
    Sidgwick's defence of esoteric morality has been heavily criticized, for example in Bernard Williams's condemnation of it as 'Government House utilitarianism.' It is also at odds with the idea of morality defended by Kant, Rawls, Bernard Gert, Brad Hooker, and T.M. Scanlon. Yet it does seem to be an implication of consequentialism that it is sometimes right to do in secret what it would not be right to do openly, or to advocate publicly. We defend Sidgwick on this issue, and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Eric Wiland (2007). How Indirect Can Indirect Utilitarianism Be? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2):275-301.
    Most act-utilitarians now reject the direct utilitarianism of Bentham. They do so because they are convinced of what I call the paradox of utilitarianism -- the thought that one cannot maximize happiness if one is trying to maximize happiness. Instead, they adopt some form of indirect utilitarianism (IU), arguing that the optimal decision procedure may differ markedly from the criterion of rightness for actions. Here I distinguish between six different versions of indirect utilitarianism, arguing that the weaker versions of IU (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation