David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Utilitas 9 (2):241-248 (1997)
Objective consequentialism is often criticized because it is impossible to know which of our actions will have the best consequences. Why exactly does this undermine objective consequentialism? I offer a new link between the claim that our knowledge of the future is limited and the rejection of objective consequentialism: that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ and we cannot produce the best consequences available to us. I support this apparently paradoxical contention by way of an analogy. I cannot beat Karpov at chess in spite of the fact that I can make each of many series of moves, at least one of which would beat him. I then respond to a series of objections. In the process I develop an account of the ‘can’ of ability. I conclude with some remarks about the bearing this attack has on subjective consequentialism
|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
Amia Srinivasan (2015). Normativity Without Cartesian Privilege. Philosophical Issues 25 (1):273-299.
Peter B. M. Vranas (2007). I Ought, Therefore I Can. Philosophical Studies 136 (2):167 - 216.
Rob van Someren Greve (2014). 'Ought', 'Can', and Fairness. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (5):913-922.
Fred Feldman (2006). Actual Utility, the Objection From Impracticality, and the Move to Expected Utility. Philosophical Studies 129 (1):49 - 79.
Stephen John (2015). Inductive Risk and the Contexts of Communication. Synthese 192 (1):79-96.
Similar books and articles
Douglas W. Portmore (2011). 7 Consequentialism. In Christian Miller (ed.), Continuum Companion to Ethics. Continuum 143.
Scott Forschler (2009). Truth and Acceptance Conditions for Moral Statements Can Be Identical: Further Support for Subjective Consequentialism. Utilitas 21 (3):337-346.
Frances Howard-Snyder (1999). Response to Carlson and Qizilbash. Utilitas 11 (1):106-111.
Vuko Andrić (2013). Objective Consequentialism and the Licensing Dilemma. Philosophical Studies 162 (3):547-566.
JEAN-PAUL VESSEL (2008). The Probabilistic Nature of Objective Consequentialism. Theoria 73 (1):46 - 67.
Onora O'neill (2004). Consequences for Non-Consequentialists. Utilitas 16 (1):1-11.
Erik Carlson (1999). The Oughts and Cans of Objective Consequentialism. Utilitas 11 (1):91-96.
Mozaffar Qizilbash (1999). The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism: A Comment. Utilitas 11 (1):97-105.
Added to index2009-06-20
Total downloads159 ( #16,334 of 1,781,359 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #96,732 of 1,781,359 )
How can I increase my downloads?