Rule consequentialism and disasters
Philosophical Studies 162 (2):219-236 (2013)
| Abstract | Rule consequentialism (RC) is the view that it is right for A to do F in C if and only if A's doing F in C is in accordance with the the set of rules which, if accepted by all, would have consequences which are better than any alternative set of rules (i.e., the ideal code). I defend RC from two related objections. The first objection claims that RC requires obedience to the ideal code even if doing so has disastrous results. Though some rule consequentialists embrace a disaster-clause which permits agents to disregard some of the rules in the ideal code as a necessary means of avoiding disasters, they have not adequately explained how this clause works. I offer such an explanation and show how it fits naturally with the rest of RC. The second disaster objection asserts that even if RC can legitimately invoke a disaster-clause, it lacks principled grounds from distinguishing disasters from non-disasters. In response, I explore Hooker's suggestion that “disaster” is vague. I contend that every plausible ethical theory must invoke something similar to a disaster clause. So if “disaster” is vague, then every plausible ethical theory faces a difficulty with it. As a result, this vagueness is not a reason to prefer other theories to RC. However, I argue, contra Hooker, that the sense of “disaster” relevant to RC is not vague, and RC does indeed have principled grounds to distinguish disasters from nondisasters. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesColleen Murphy & Paolo Gardoni (2010). Gauging the Societal Impacts of Natural Disasters Using a Capability Approach. Disasters 34 (3):619-636.
Leonard Kahn (2012). Rule Consequentialism and Scope. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (5):631-646.
Han-Liang Chang (2006). Disaster Semiotics. Sign Systems Studies 34 (1):215-229.
Richard Arneson (2005). Sophisticated Rule Consequentialism: Some Simple Objections. Philosophical Issues 15 (1):235–251.
Brad Hooker (2000). Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford University Press.
Alan Muller & Gail Whiteman (2009). Exploring the Geography of Corporate Philanthropic Disaster Response: A Study of Fortune Global 500 Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 84 (4):589 - 603.
Stephen David Ross (forthcoming). Disaster. International Studies in Philosophy Monograph Series:335-350.
Jussi Suikkanen (2008). A Dilemma for Rule-Consequentialism. Philosophia 36 (1):141-150.
C. Murphy & P. Gardoni (2008). Recovery From Natural and Man-Made Disasters As Capabilities Restoration and Enhancement. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 3 (4):1-17.
Iain Law (1999). Rule-Consequentialism's Dilemma. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (3):263-276.
Caddie Putnam Rankin, Harry Van Buren & Michelle Westermann-Behaylo (2012). Corporate Compassion in Disaster Relief. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 23:66-77.
Ruth Austin Miller (2009). Law in Crisis: The Ecstatic Subject of Natural Disaster. Stanford University Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-09-30Total downloads48 ( #22,366 of 549,013 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,013 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
