This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
6 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
  1. Richard Yetter Chappell (2012). Fittingness: The Sole Normative Primitive. Philosophical Quarterly 62 (249):684 - 704.
    This paper draws on the 'Fitting Attitudes' analysis of value to argue that we should take the concept of fittingness (rather than value) as our normative primitive. I will argue that the fittingness framework enhances the clarity and expressive power of our normative theorising. Along the way, we will see how the fittingness framework illuminates our understanding of various moral theories, and why it casts doubt on the Global Consequentialist idea that acts and (say) eye colours are normatively on a (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (10 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  2. Elinor Mason (2002). Against Blameless Wrongdoing. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (3):287-303.
    I argue against the standard view that it is possible to describe extensionally different consequentialist theories by describing different evaluative focal points. I argue that for consequentialist purposes, the important sense of the word act must include all motives and side effects, and thus these things cannot be separated.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  3. Toby Ord, How to Be a Consequentialist About Everything.
    Over the last few decades, there has been an increasing interest in global consequentialism. Where act-consequentialism assesses acts in terms of their consequences, global consequentialism goes much further, assessing acts, rules, motives — and everything else — in terms of the relevant consequences. Compared to act-consequentialism it offers a number of advantages: it is more expressive, it is a simpler theory, and it captures some of the benefits of ruleconsequentialism without the corresponding drawbacks. In this paper, I explore the four (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography  
  4. Philip Pettit & Michael Smith (2000). Global Consequentialism. In Brad Hooker, Elinor Mason & Dale Miller (eds.), Morality, Rules and Consequences: A Critical Reader. Edinburgh University Press
    Remove from this list  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  5. Re'em Segev (2010). Hierarchical Consequentialism. Utilitas 22 (3):309-330.
    The paper considers a hierarchical theory that combines concern for two values: individual well-being – as a fundamental, first-order value – and (distributive) fairness – as a high-order value that its exclusive function is to complete the value of individual well-being by resolving internal clashes within it that occur in interpersonal conflicts. The argument for this unique conception of high-order fairness is that fairness is morally significant in itself only regarding what matters – individual well-being – and when it matters (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  6. Bart Streumer (2005). Semi-Global Consequentialism and Blameless Wrongdoing: Reply to Brown. Utilitas 17 (2):226-230.
    Campbell Brown is right that my argument against semi-global consequentialism relies on the principle of agglomeration. However, semi-global consequentialists cannot rescue their view simply by rejecting this principle.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography