Ratio 22 (1):41-58 (2009)
|Abstract||A critical examination of Parfit's attempt to reconcile Kantian contractualism with consequentialism, which disputes his contention that the contracting parties would lack decisive reasons to choose principles that ground prohibitions against harming of the sort to which non-consequentialists have been attracted. 1.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Tim Mulgan (2001). The Demands of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.
Douglas W. Portmore (forthcoming). Consequentialism. In Christian Miller (ed.), The Continuum Companion to Ethical Theory. Continuum.
Bart Streumer (2003). Can Consequentialism Cover Everything? Utilitas 15 (2):237-47.
Douglas W. Portmore (forthcoming). Consequentialism and Moral Rationalism. Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics.
David Cummiskey (1990). Kantian Consequentialism. Ethics 100 (3):586-615.
Dale Dorsey (2012). Consequentialism, Metaphysical Realism and the Argument From Cluelessness. Philosophical Quarterly 62 (246):48-70.
Jacob Ross (2009). Should Kantians Be Consequentialists? Ratio 22 (1):126-135.
Jane Singleton (2002). Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics, and Consequentialism. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:537-551.
Seiriol Morgan (2009). Can There Be a Kantian Consequentialism? Ratio 22 (1):19-40.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads88 ( #8,087 of 549,090 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,333 of 549,090 )
How can I increase my downloads?