David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Public Affairs 22 (4):267-292 (1993)
Principles of bcnciiccnce require us to promote the good. If we believe that a plausible mom] conception will contain some such principle, we must address the issue of the demands it imposes on agents. Some writers have defended extremely demanding principles, while others have argued that only principles with limited demands are acceptable. In this paper I su ggest that we 100k at the demands 0f beneficencc in a different way; 0ur concern should not just be with the extent of the demands faced by individual agents. Instead, we should consider how the demands imposed Ol'] an agent by a principle of beneiiccncc are affected by the level of compliance with the principle by others. Act—firstname.lastname@example.org, for example, in effect requires each complying agent to shoulder her share of the demands of bcncficcnce plus as many of the shares of noncomplying agents as would be optimal. I suggest that we focus OH this feature ofconsequentialism, and not just on the very high demands it can impose Ol'] individual agents. Thus I defend the View that principles of beneiicence should not demand more of agents as expected compliance by othcr agents decreases, and formulate a principle of bencficcnce that meets this condition. This View about beneiicence and compliance is supported by a particular conception 0f beneiiccnce. Rather than as an aim we each have as individuals, benciicence could be understood as a cooperative project, where each of us aims to promote the good together with others. If s0, it would be natural t..
|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
Brian Berkey (2016). The Demandingness of Morality: Toward a Reflective Equilibrium. Philosophical Studies:1-21.
Elizabeth Cripps (2011). Climate Change, Collective Harm and Legitimate Coercion. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14 (2):171-193.
Vanessa Carbonell (2015). Sacrifices of Self. Journal of Ethics 19 (1):53-72.
Keith Horton (2011). Fairness and Fair Shares. Utilitas 23 (1):88.
James Wallace & Nelarine Cornelius (2010). Community Development and Social Regeneration: How the Third Sector Addresses the Needs of BME Communities in Post-Industrial Cities. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 97 (S1):43-54.
Similar books and articles
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2008). Permissibility and Violable Rules. Philosophia 36 (3):367-374.
Allen Coates (2013). The Enkratic Requirement. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (2):320-333.
Serena Olsaretti (2009). Responsibility and the Consequences of Choice. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109 (1pt2):165-188.
Dale Dorsey (2012). Weak Anti-Rationalism and the Demands of Morality†. Noûs 46 (1):1-23.
Tim Mulgan (2001). How Satisficers Get Away with Murder. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9 (1):41 – 46.
Timothy Chappell (2001). The Implications of Incommensurability. Philosophy 76 (1):137-148.
Liam B. Murphy (2000). Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory. Oxford University Press.
William Sin (2012). Internalization and Moral Demands. Philosophical Studies 157 (2):163-175.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads391 ( #4,878 of 1,934,422 )
Recent downloads (6 months)30 ( #19,998 of 1,934,422 )
How can I increase my downloads?