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 Act consequentialism  Rule consequentialism  Agent-centered constraints  Disasters  Ideal code  Vagueness
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,986
External links
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
Robert Merrihew Adams (1976). Motive Utilitarianism. Journal of Philosophy 73 (14):467-481.
R. B. Brandt (1972). Utilitarianism and the Rules of War. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (2):145-165.

View all 34 references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
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.
Stephen David Ross (2010). Disaster. International Studies in Philosophy Monograph Series:335-350.
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.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-09-30

Total downloads

55 ( #28,413 of 1,100,992 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

6 ( #44,275 of 1,100,992 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.