What is Deontology?, Part One: Orthodox Viewsa Gerald F. Gaus
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Current moral philosophy is often seen as essentially a debate between the two great traditions of consequentialism and deontology. Although there has been considerable work clarifying consequentialism, deontology is more often attacked or defended than analyzed. Just how we are to understand the very idea of a deontological ethic? We shall see that competing conceptions of deontology have been advanced in recent ethical thinking, leading to differences in classifying ethical theories. If we do not focus on implausible versions, the idea of a deontological ethic is far more attractive than most philosophers have thought. Indeed, I shall argue that in an important sense, only a deontological ethic can be plausible
|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
Gerald F. Gaus (2001). What is Deontology? Part One: Orthodox Views. [REVIEW] Journal of Value Inquiry 35 (1):27-42.
Gerald F. Gaus (2001). What is Deontology? Part Two: Reasons to Act. [REVIEW] Journal of Value Inquiry 35 (2):179-193.
Miriam Ronzoni (2010). Teleology, Deontology, and the Priority of the Right: On Some Unappreciated Distinctions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (4):453 - 472.
David McNaughton & Piers Rawling (1998). On Defending Deontology. Ratio 11 (1):37–54.
Michael Bergmann (2000). Deontology and Defeat. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (1):87-102.
Douglas W. Portmore (2005). Combining Teleological Ethics with Evaluator Relativism: A Promising Result. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (1):95–113.
James E. Macdonald & Caryn L. Beck-Dudley (1994). Are Deontology and Teleology Mutually Exclusive? Journal of Business Ethics 13 (8):615 - 623.
Matthew Lister (2011). Review of Gerald Gaus, The Order of Public Reason. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Review.
Richard Dean (2010). Does Neuroscience Undermine Deontological Theory? Neuroethics 3 (1):43-60.
Dan Demetriou (2009). A Modest Intuitionist Reply to Greene's fMRI-Based Objections to Deontology. Southwest Philosophy Review 25 (1):107-117.
Judith André (1991). The Demands of Deontology Are Not So Paradoxical. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:407-410.
Roger Crisp (2015). A Third Method of Ethics? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90 (2):257-273.
William H. Shaw (1991). On the Paradox of Deontology. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:393-406.
Added to index2010-10-08
Total downloads67 ( #50,874 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?