Graduate studies at Western
Social Philosophy and Policy 26 (1):212-226 (2009)
|Abstract||Consequentialist and Kantian theories differ over the ethical relevance of consequences of actions. I investigate how they might differ too over the relevance of what actions are consequence of. Focusing on the case of group action and collective responsibility, I argue that there's a kind of analog to the problem of aggregating the value of consequencesthat Kantian theories will not confront and consequentialist theories will. The issue provides a useful way to characterize a deep difference between Kantian and consequentialist theories and points, ironically, toward a way of making those views compatible|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Daniel M. Hausman (2007). Group Risks, Risks to Groups, and Group Engagement in Genetics Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (4):351-369.
Raimo Tuomela (1992). Group Beliefs. Synthese 91 (3):285-318.
Nicholas S. Thompson (2000). Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the Group Level. Behavior and Philosophy 28 (1/2):83 - 101.
Raimo Tuomela (2005). Cooperation and Trust in Group Context. Mind and Society 4 (1):49-84.
Sheron Fraser-Burgess (2011). Group Identity, Deliberative Democracy and Diversity in Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (5):480-499.
Husain Sarkar (2007). Group Rationality in Scientific Research. Cambridge University Press.
Farhad Dalal (1998). Taking the Group Seriously: Towards a Post-Foulkesian Group Analytic Theory. J. Kingsley.
Erol Kuyurtar (2007). Are Cultural Group Rights Against Individual Rights? The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 3:51-59.
Samir Okasha (2003). The Concept of Group Heritability. Biology and Philosophy 18 (3):445-461.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads78 ( #12,498 of 722,940 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,863 of 722,940 )
How can I increase my downloads?