Can Hooker's rule-consequentialist principle justify Ross's prima facie duties?
Mind 106 (424):751-758 (1997)
| 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 articlesVojko Strahovnik (2005). The Good in the Right. [REVIEW] Croatian Journal of Philosophy 5 (15):583-589.
Mark van Roojen (2008). Some Advantages of One Form of Argument for the Maximin Principle. Acta Analytica 23 (4):319-335.
Christopher Meyers (2011). Reappreciating W. D. Ross: Naturalizing Prima Facie Duties and a Proposed Method. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 26 (4):316-331.
H. H. Jack (1971). Utilitarianism and Ross's Theory of Prima Facie Duties. Dialogue 10 (03):437-456.
John Atwell (1978). Ross and Prima Facie Duties. Ethics 88 (3):240-249.
B. C. Postow (2006). A Partial Application Procedure for Ross's Ethical Theory. Journal of Philosophical Research 31:239-248.
Philip Stratton-Lake (2011). Recalcitrant Pluralism. Ratio 24 (4):364-383.
Michael Morreau (1996). Prima Facie and Seeming Duties. Studia Logica 57 (1):47 - 71.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads16 ( #74,649 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,065 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
