David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal for the History of Analytic Philosophy 1 (2) (2012)
The denial of the intrinsic value of acts apart from both motives and consequences lies at the heart of Ross’s deontology and his opposition to ideal utilitarianism. Moreover, the claim that acts can have intrinsic value is a staple element of early and contemporary attempts to “consequentialise” all of morality. I first show why Ross’s denial is relevant both for his philosophy and for current debates. Then I consider and reject as inconclusive some of Ross’s explicit and implicit motivations for his claim, stemming from his philosophy of action, his axiology, and his concept of intrinsic value, or a combination of these. I also criticize Ross’s later view that all right acts somehow produce some good, but that the value of some of these goods is explained by the prior rightness of the act. In the course of the discussion, the idea that acts can have intrinsic value apart from motives and consequences gains credibility both from the weaknesses in Ross’s arguments and from some putative examples. So, finally, I distinguish two attitudes in the history of ideal utilitarianism towards the necessity or not to give a detailed account of the intrinsic value of acts, and suggest that a Why Bother attitude is more promising than a Constructive one.
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anthony Skelton (2013). Ross, William David. In James Crimmins (ed.), Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Utilitarianism. Bloomsbury Academic
Baruch A. Brody (1970). Moral Rules and Particular Circumstances. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,Prentice-Hall.
Anthony Skelton (2011). Ideal Utilitarianism: Rashdall and Moore. In Thomas Hurka (ed.), Underivative Duty: British Moral Philosophers from Sidgwick to Ewing. Oxford University Press 45-65.
Anita Superson (2010). The Deferential Wife Revisited: Agency and Moral Responsibility. Hypatia 25 (2):253 - 275.
Thomas L. Carson (2005). Ross and Utilitarianism on Promise Keeping and Lying: Self‐Evidence and the Data of Ethics. Philosophical Issues 15 (1):140–157.
Imtiaz Moosa (2002). Does the Failure of Utilitarianism Justify a Belief in Intrinsic Value? Philo 5 (2):123-142.
Steven G. Smith (2010). Intrinsic Value, Goodness, and the Appeals of Things. International Philosophical Quarterly 50 (2):167-181.
Simon Wigley (2012). Justicized Consequentialism: Prioritizing the Right or the Good? [REVIEW] Journal of Value Inquiry 46 (4):467-479.
Guy Fletcher (2008). 'Mill, Moore, and Intrinsic Value'. Social Theory and Practice 34 (4):517-32.
Fred Feldman (1998). Hyperventilating About Intrinsic Value. Journal of Ethics 2 (4):339-354.
Anthony Skelton (2013). Ideal Utilitarianism. In James Crimmins (ed.), Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Utilitarianism. Bloomsbury Academic
W. D. Ross (2002). The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press.
Added to index2012-02-03
Total downloads37 ( #73,446 of 1,699,829 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #269,935 of 1,699,829 )
How can I increase my downloads?