David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (1):65 - 85 (2006)
In this paper I look at attempts to develop forms of consequentialism which do not have a feature considered problematic in Direct Consequentialist theories (that is, those consequentialist theories that apply the criterion of rightness directly in the evaluation of any set of options). The problematic feature in question (which I refer to as ‘evaluative conflict’) is the possibility that, for example, a right motive might lead an agent to perform a wrong act. Theories aiming to avoid this phenomenon must argue that causal relationship entails motives and acts (for example) having the same moral status. I argue that attempts to ensure such ‘evaluative consistency’ are themselves deeply problematic, and that we must therefore accept evaluative conflict.
|Keywords||direct consequentialism indirect consequentialism motives blameless wrongdoing moral evaluation|
|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
Derek Parfit (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.
Thomas Nagel (1986). The View From Nowhere. Oxford University Press.
John Jamieson Carswell Smart & Bernard Williams (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press.
Peter Railton (1984). Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (2):134-171.
Robert Merrihew Adams (1976). Motive Utilitarianism. Journal of Philosophy 73 (14):467-481.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert Guay (2005). A Refutation of Consequentialism. Metaphilosophy 36 (3):348-362.
Tyler Cowen (2006). The Epistemic Problem Does Not Refute Consequentialism. Utilitas 18 (4):383.
Joseph Mendola (2005). Consequentialism, Group Acts, and Trolleys. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (1):64–87.
Douglas W. Portmore (2001). Can an Act-Consequentialist Theory Be Agent Relative? American Philosophical Quarterly 38 (4):363-77.
Frances Howard-Snyder & Alastair Norcross (1993). A Consequentialist Case for Rejecting the Right. Journal of Philosophical Research 18:109-125.
Steven Sverdlik (1996). Motive and Rightness. Ethics 106 (2):327-349.
Jennie Louise (2009). Correct Responses and the Priority of the Normative. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (4):345 - 364.
Alastair Norcross (1997). Good and Bad Actions. Philosophical Review 106 (1):1-34.
Douglas W. Portmore (2008). Dual-Ranking Act-Consequentialism. Philosophical Studies 138 (3):409 - 427.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads46 ( #90,708 of 1,796,429 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #136,212 of 1,796,429 )
How can I increase my downloads?