David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Utilitas 16 (1):1-11 (2004)
Both consequentialist and non-consequentialist ethical reasoning have difficulties in accounting for the value of consequences. Taken neat, consequentialism is too fierce in its emphasis on success and disregard of luck, while non-consequentialism seemingly over-values inner states and undervalues actual results. In Uneasy Virtue Julia Driver proposes a form of objective consequentialism which claims that characters are good if they typically (but not invariably) produce good results. This position addresses the problems moral luck raises for consequentialism, but requires some form of realism about traits of character. However, if our knowledge of mental states is ascriptive, this form of objective consequentialism may make excessive demands. Non-consequentialists may gain in so far as the theories of action to which they are typically committed are less demanding, and are built to take account of the typical or systematic connections between states of character and results of action.
|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
Dale L. Clark (2009). Aesop's Fox: Consequentialist Virtue Meets Egocentric Bias. Philosophical Psychology 22 (6):727 – 737.
Adam Feltz & Edward T. Cokely (2012). Virtue or Consequences: The Folk Against Pure Evaluational Internalism. Philosophical Psychology 26 (5):702-717.
Similar books and articles
Jacob Ross (2009). Should Kantians Be Consequentialists? Ratio 22 (1):126-135.
Alastair Norcross (1990). Consequentialism and the Unforeseeable Future. Analysis 50 (4):253 - 256.
Frances Howard-Snyder (1997). The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism. Utilitas 9 (02):241-248.
Erik Carlson (1999). The Oughts and Cans of Objective Consequentialism. Utilitas 11 (01):91-96.
Vuko Andrić (2013). Objective Consequentialism and the Licensing Dilemma. Philosophical Studies 162 (3):547-566.
Scott Forschler (2009). Truth and Acceptance Conditions for Moral Statements Can Be Identical: Further Support for Subjective Consequentialism. Utilitas 21 (3):337-346.
Elinor Mason (1999). Do Consequentialists Have One Thought Too Many? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (3):243-261.
Ben Bradley (2005). Virtue Consequentialism. Utilitas 17 (3):282-298.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads96 ( #13,615 of 1,101,947 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #52,474 of 1,101,947 )
How can I increase my downloads?