Recalcitrant pluralism

Ratio 24 (4):364-383 (2011)
Abstract In this paper I argue that the best form of deontology is one understood in terms of prima facie duties. I outline how these duties are to be understood and show how they offer a plausible and elegant connection between the reason why we ought to do certain acts, the normative reasons we have to do these acts, the reason why moral agents will do them, and the reasons certain people have to resent someone who does not do them. I then argue that this form of deontology makes it harder to unify a pluralistic ethics under a single consequentialist principle in a plausible way, and illustrate this with reference to Rob Shaver's consequentialist arguments
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 5,875
External links
  • Through your library Configure

    Similar books and articles
    Ragnar Francén (2010). Moral Motivation Pluralism. Journal of Ethics 14 (2):117-148.
    Robert B. Talisse (2011). Value Pluralism and Liberal Politics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (1):87-100.
    Vojko Strahovnik (2005). The Good in the Right. [REVIEW] Croatian Journal of Philosophy 5 (15):583-589.
    Patricia Greenspan (2010). Making Room for Options : Moral Reasons, Imperfect Duties, and Choice. In Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred Dycus Miller & Jeffrey Paul (eds.), Moral Obligation. Cambridge University Press.
    Andrew Jordan (2013). Reasons, Holism And Virtue Theory. Philosophical Quarterly 63 (251):248-268.

    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2011-11-10

    Total downloads

    19 ( #65,278 of 556,837 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )

    How can I increase my downloads?


    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  is 1 thread in this forum
    2012-11-20
    For those that are interested, I've written up a response at philosophyetc.net that defends consequentialism from some of the interesting objections that Stratton-Lake raises in this paper.

    Other forums