The formalism-consequentialism distinction
Philosophical Studies 34 (2):197 - 202 (1978)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesFrances Howard-Snyder (1997). The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism. Utilitas 9 (02):241-248.
Benjamin Sachs (2010). Consequentialism's Double-Edged Sword. Utilitas 22 (3):258-271.
Michael Ridge (2001). Agent-Neutral Consequentialism From the Inside-Out: Concern for Integrity Without Self-Indulgence. Utilitas 13 (02):236-.
David McNaughton & Piers Rawling (1998). On Defending Deontology. Ratio 11 (1):37–54.
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.
Nick Zangwill (1999). Feasible Aesthetic Formalism. Noûs 33 (4):610-629.
Robert Guay (2005). A Refutation of Consequentialism. Metaphilosophy 36 (3):348-362.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads12 ( #93,300 of 549,037 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
