What is Deontology?, Part Two: Reasons to Act Gerald F. Gaus
|Abstract||Part One of this essay considered familiar ways of characterizing deontology, which focus on the notions of the good and the right. Here we will take up alternative approaches, which stress the type of reasons for actions that are generated by deontological theories. Although some of these alternative conceptualizations of deontology also employ a distinction between the good and the right, all mark the basic contrast between deontology and teleology in terms of reasons to act|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Michael Bergmann (2000). Deontology and Defeat. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (1):87-102.
William H. Shaw (1991). On the Paradox of Deontology. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:393-406.
David McNaughton & Piers Rawling (1998). On Defending Deontology. Ratio 11 (1):37–54.
Judith André (1991). The Demands of Deontology Are Not So Paradoxical. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:407-410.
William J. Ellos (1984). The Practice of Medical Ethics: A Structuralistic Approach. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 5 (3).
Miriam Ronzoni (forthcoming). Teleology, Deontology, and the Priority of the Right: On Some Unappreciated Distinctions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.
Gerald F. Gaus (2001). What is Deontology? Part One: Orthodox Views. Journal of Value Inquiry 35 (1):27-42.
Gerald F. Gaus (2001). What is Deontology? Part Two: Reasons to Act. Journal of Value Inquiry 35 (2):179-193.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads67 ( #13,233 of 549,069 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,069 )
How can I increase my downloads?