David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoria 57 (1-2):42-76 (1991)
According to the axiologist the value concepts are basic and the deontic concepts are derivative. This paper addresses two fundamental problems that arise for the axiologist. Firstly, what ought the axiologist o understand by the value of an act? Second, what are the prospects in principle for an axiological representation of moral theories. Can the deontic concepts of any coherent moral theory be represented by an agent-netural axiology: (1) whatever structure those concepts have and (2) whatever the causal structure of the world happens to be. We show that the answer is "almost always". The only substantive constraint is that autonomous moral agents cannot have the power to simultaneously block the options open to other autonomous moral agents. But this seems to be part and parcel of the notion of an autonomous moral agent.
|Keywords||consequentializing moral theories generalized axiology axiological representation of deontic content|
No categories specified
(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
Douglas W. Portmore (2009). Consequentializing. Philosophy Compass 4 (2):329-347.
Mark Colyvan, Damian Cox & Katie Steele (2010). Modelling the Moral Dimension of Decisions. Noûs 44 (3):503-529.
Benjamin Sachs (2010). Consequentialism's Double-Edged Sword. Utilitas 22 (3):258-271.
Martin Peterson (2010). A Royal Road to Consequentialism? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (2):153-169.
Graham Oddie (2013). The Content, Consequence and Likeness Approaches to Verisimilitude: Compatibility, Trivialization, and Underdetermination. Synthese 190 (9):1647-1687.
Similar books and articles
Peter Vallentyne (1988). Teleology, Consequentialism, and the Past. Journal of Value Inquiry 22 (2):89-101.
Torsten Hahmann & Michael Grüninger (2013). Complementation in Representable Theories of Region-Based Space. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 54 (2):177-214.
Philip J. Nickel (2009). Trust, Staking, and Expectations. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour 39 (3):345–362.
Paul Noordhof (1999). Moral Requirements Are Still Not Rational Requirements. Analysis 59 (3):127–136.
Graham Oddie (1993). Act and Maxim: Value-Discrepancy and Two Theories of Power. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (1):71-92.
Bill Shaw (1988). Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Legal and Moral Analysis. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 7 (10):789 - 795.
Peter Vallentyne (2006). Against Maximizing Act-Consequentialism (December 2, 2010) in Moral Theories Edited by Jamie Dreier (Blackwell Publishers, 2006), Pp. 21-37. [REVIEW] In Dreier Jamie (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Moral Theories. Blackwell Publishers.
Alex Rajczi (2011). The Argument From Self-Creation: A Refutation of Act-Consequentialism and a Defense of Moral Options. American Philosophical Quarterly 48 (4):315.
Matt Zwolinski & David Schmidtz (2005). Virtue Ethics and Repugnant Conclusions. In R. Sandler & P. Cafaro (eds.), Environmental Virtue Ethics. Rowman & Littlefield. 107--17.
Michael Schwartz (2009). Gibbs and the Problems of Satisfaction and Well-Being. Business Ethics 18 (4):408-411.
Dennis M. Patterson (1992). The Value of a Promise. Law and Philosophy 11 (4):385 - 402.
Robert L. Frazier (1994). Act Utilitarianism and Decision Procedures. Utilitas 6 (1):43-53.
Tyler Cowen (2006). The Epistemic Problem Does Not Refute Consequentialism. Utilitas 18 (04):383-.
Added to index2010-09-13
Total downloads41 ( #42,129 of 1,102,699 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #24,543 of 1,102,699 )
How can I increase my downloads?