Utilitas 15 (2):237-47 (2003)
|Abstract||Derek Parfit, Philip Pettit and Michael Smith defend a version of consequentialism that covers everything. I argue that this version of consequentialism is false. Consequentialism, I argue, can only cover things that belong to a combination of things that agents can bring about.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Tim Mulgan (2001). How Satisficers Get Away with Murder. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9 (1):41 – 46.
Benjamin Sachs (2010). Consequentialism's Double-Edged Sword. Utilitas 22 (3):258-271.
Douglas W. Portmore (2008). Dual-Ranking Act-Consequentialism. Philosophical Studies 138 (3):409 - 427.
Campbell Brown (2005). Blameless Wrongdoing and Agglomeration: A Response to Streumer. Utilitas 17 (2):222-225.
Mozaffar Qizilbash (1999). The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism: A Comment. Utilitas 11 (01):97-105.
Douglas W. Portmore (forthcoming). Consequentialism. In Christian Miller (ed.), The Continuum Companion to Ethical Theory. Continuum.
Tim Mulgan (2001). The Demands of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads48 ( #22,402 of 549,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #10,333 of 549,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?