Ratio 22 (1):59-77 (2009)
|Abstract||The central thesis of Derek Parfit's On What Matters is that three of the most important secular moral traditions – Kantianism, contractualism, and consequentialism – all actually converge in a way onto the same view. It is in this sense that he suggests that we may all be 'climbing the same mountain, but from different sides'. In this paper, I argue that Parfit's argument that we are all metaphorically climbing the same mountain is unsound. One reason his argument does not work is that he has misunderstood the way in which a plausible rule-consequentialism should understand the supervenience of rightness on all possible acceptance levels of the ideal moral code. In place of Parfit's own understanding of this, I develop a view I call 'variable-rate rule-utilitarianism', which I argue shares the key insight of Parfit's view but avoids a fatal objection to his own articulation of that insight. Finally, I explore how this modification might allow us to still make a case that we are all 'climbing the same mountain', albeit in a very different way and for very different reasons than the ones Parfit had in mind.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Derek Parfit (forthcoming). Climbing the Mountain. Oxford University Press.
Timothy Chappell (2012). Climbing Which Mountain? A Critical Study of Derek Parfit On What Matters (OUP 2011). Philosophical Investigations 35 (2):167-181.
Jussi Suikkanen & John Cottingham (eds.) (2009). Essays on Derek Parfit's on What Matters. Wiley-Blackwell.
Jacob Ross (2009). Should Kantians Be Consequentialists? Ratio 22 (1):126-135.
Jussi Suikkanen (2011). Parfit's Mountain. The Philosopher's Magazine 54 (54):102-103.
Seiriol Morgan (2009). Can There Be a Kantian Consequentialism? Ratio 22 (1):19-40.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads66 ( #16,566 of 722,932 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,864 of 722,932 )
How can I increase my downloads?