David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Simon Kirchin (ed.), Reading Parfit. Routledge (forthcoming)
I argue that rule consequentialism sometimes requires us to act in ways that we lack sufficient reason to act. And this presents a dilemma for Parfit. Either Parfit should concede that we should reject rule consequentialism (and, hence, Triple Theory, which implies it) despite the putatively strong reasons that he believes we have for accepting the view or he should deny that morality has the importance he attributes to it. For if morality is such that we sometimes have decisive reason to act wrongly, then what we should be concerned with, practically speaking, is not with the morality of our actions, but with whether our actions are supported by sufficient reasons. We could, then, for all intents and purposes just ignore morality and focus on what we have sufficient reason to do, all things considered. So if my arguments are cogent, they show that Parfit’s Triple Theory is either false or relatively unimportant in that we can, for all intents and purposes, simply ignore its requirements and just do whatever it is that we have sufficient reason to do, all things considered.
|Keywords||Derek Parfit Rule Consequentialism Practical Reasons|
|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
Jacob Nebel (2012). A Counterexample to Parfit's Rule Consequentialism. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy:00-00.
Michael Ridge (2009). Climb Every Mountain? Ratio 22 (1):59-77.
Jacob Ross (2009). Should Kantians Be Consequentialists? Ratio 22 (1):126-135.
Christopher Woodard (2008). A New Argument Against Rule Consequentialism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (3):247 - 261.
Lanning Sowden (1986). Review: Parfit on Self-Interest, Common-Sense Morality and Consequentialism: A Selective Critique of Parfit's "Reasons and Persons". [REVIEW] Philosophical Quarterly 36 (145):514 - 535.
Douglas W. Portmore (2011). Consequentialism and Moral Rationalism. In Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics. Oxford Univ Pr
Benjamin Kiesewetter (2012). A Dilemma for Parfit's Conception of Normativity. Analysis 72 (3):466-474.
Jonny Anomaly (2013). Review of Derek Parfit, On What Matters. [REVIEW] Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (3):358-360.
Douglas W. Portmore, Chapter 5: Dual-Ranking Act-Consequentialism: Reasons, Morality, and Overridingness.
Bart Streumer (2003). Can Consequentialism Cover Everything? Utilitas 15 (2):237-47.
Michael Smith (2009). Desires, Values, Reasons, and the Dualism of Practical Reason. Ratio 22 (1):98-125.
Derek Parfit (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2012-12-05
Total downloads341 ( #6,591 of 1,937,350 )
Recent downloads (6 months)29 ( #16,952 of 1,937,350 )
How can I increase my downloads?