Philosophical Studies 52 (1):131 - 139 (1987)
|Abstract||It is often held that moral considerations take precedence over considerations of other kinds in determining what we ought to do. I contend that this claim is ambiguous and argue that objections to each interpretation of it can be met only by rejecting the other. One surprising consequence of my argument is that no deontic moral theory can effectively guide action unless it is conjoined with a theory of the good. Another interesting consequence is that the deontologists' favorite objection to teleological theories — the objection from injustice — does not go through.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James Dreier (2000). Dispositions and Fetishes. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (3):619 - 638.
Garrett Cullity (1999). Virtue Ethics, Theory, and Warrant. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (3):277-294.
Aysel Doğan (2011). On the Priority of the Right to the Good. Kant-Studien 102 (3):316-334.
Gunnar Björnsson (2001). Why Emotivists Love Inconsistency. Philosophical Studies 104 (1):81 - 108.
Gyula Klima (2003). Conceptual Closure in Anselm's Proof: Reply to Tony Roark. History and Philosophy of Logic 24 (2):131-134.
David Mcnaughton (2002). Is God (Almost) a Consequentialist? Swinburne's Moral Theory. Religious Studies 38 (3):265-281.
Aaron Smuts (2011). Grounding Moralism: Moral Flaws and Aesthetic Properties. Journal of Aesthetic Education 45 (4):34-53.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #131,614 of 722,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,006 of 722,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?