David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Issues 15 (1):140–157 (2005)
An important test of any moral theory is whether it can give a satisfactory account of moral prohibitions such as those against promise breaking and lying. Act-utilitarianism (hereafter utilitarianism) implies that any act can be justified if it results in the best consequences. Utilitarianism implies that it is sometimes morally right to break promises and tell lies. Few people find this result to be counterintuitive and very few are persuaded by Kant’s arguments that attempt to show that lying is always wrong, even if it is necessary to save someone’s life. One thing that makes Kant’s view about lying so implausible is that he is committed to the view that the duty not to lie is always more important than any conflicting duties. Even if we agree with utilitarianism that lying and promise breaking are sometimes morally permissible, we may still be inclined to think that utilitarianism is too permissive about lying and promise breaking. Ross gives the definitive statement of this criticism. He holds that there is a strong, but overrridable, moral presumption against telling lies and breaking promises that is independent of utilitarian considerations. Almost all utilitarians claim that there is a strong moral presumption against telling lies and breaking promises on account of the direct and indirect bad consequences of those actions. However, utilitarians cannot say that there is any moral presumption against lying and promise breaking that is independent of their bad consequences. Many philosophers think that Ross’s theory constitutes a kind of reasonable middle ground in ethics between Kant’s absolutism and utilitarianism. Ross’s theory is arguably the major ethical theory that is closest to most people’s commonsense moral beliefs. It is noteworthy that the two most important defenders of rule-utilitarianism/rule-consequentialism.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Nicholas Southwood & Daniel Friedrich (2009). Promises Beyond Assurance. Philosophical Studies 144 (2):261 - 280.
T. L. S. Sprigge (1965). A Utilitarian Reply to Dr. McCloskey. Inquiry 8 (1-4):264 – 291.
Francesco Orsi (2012). David Ross, Ideal Utilitarianism, and the Intrinsic Value of Acts. Journal for the History of Analytic Philosophy 1 (2).
David Lyons (1994). Rights, Welfare, and Mill's Moral Theory. Oxford University Press.
Elizabeth Brake (2011). Is Divorce Promise-Breaking? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (1):23-39.
Rachel Lynette (2009). How to Deal with Lying. Powerkids Press.
Gini Graham Scott (2010). Playing the Lying Game: Detecting and Dealing with Lies and Liars, From Occasional Fibbers to Frequent Fabricators. Praeger.
Baruch A. Brody (1970). Moral Rules and Particular Circumstances. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,Prentice-Hall.
Thomas L. Carson (2006). The Definition of Lying. Noûs 40 (2):284–306.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads166 ( #23,247 of 1,935,135 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #39,042 of 1,935,135 )
How can I increase my downloads?