|Abstract||Parfit argues that a form of rule consequentialism can be derived from the most plausible formulation of the fundamental principle of Kantian ethics. And so he concludes that Kantians should be consequentialists. I argue that we have good reason to reject two of the auxiliary premises that figure in Parfit’s derivation of rule consequentialism from Kantianism.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Jacob Ross (2009). Should Kantians Be Consequentialists? Ratio 22 (1):126-135.
Jacob Nebel (2012). A Counterexample to Parfit's Rule Consequentialism. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy.
Douglas W. Portmore (forthcoming). Parfit on Reasons and Rule Consequentialism. In Simon Kirchin (ed.), Reading Parfit. Routledge.
Michael Ridge (2009). Climb Every Mountain? Ratio 22 (1):59-77.
Seiriol Morgan (2009). Can There Be a Kantian Consequentialism? Ratio 22 (1):19-40.
Jane Singleton (2002). Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics, and Consequentialism. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:537-551.
Jussi Suikkanen (2008). A Dilemma for Rule-Consequentialism. Philosophia 36 (1):141-150.
Michael Otsuka (2009). The Kantian Argument for Consequentialism. Ratio 22 (1):41-58.
Robert Guay (2005). A Refutation of Consequentialism. Metaphilosophy 36 (3):348-362.
Christopher Woodard (2008). A New Argument Against Rule Consequentialism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (3):247 - 261.
Bart Streumer (2003). Can Consequentialism Cover Everything? Utilitas 15 (2):237-47.
Iain Law (1999). Rule-Consequentialism's Dilemma. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (3):263-276.
David Sobel (2007). The Impotence of the Demandingness Objection. Philosophers' Imprint 7 (8):1-17.
Onora O'neill (2004). Consequences for Non-Consequentialists. Utilitas 16 (1):1-11.
Added to index2010-11-06
Total downloads30 ( #40,791 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?