Economic Theory normally assumes the so-called homo economicus, a consequential model of rationality. We highlight the main features of this model in opposition to deontology: axiological homogeneity, maximization and agent neutrality. Amartya Sen’s criticism of standard consequentialism copes to those features, and includes commitment and duty in the economic rationality. We analyze his concept of preference to ascertain how far economic rationality can thus go in the direction of deontology. We conclude that, though diminished, the difference between them still remains.

Reedición del artículo publicado on-line en la Enciclopedia de Filosofía de la Sociedad Española de Filosofía Analítica.

Durante los últimos cuarenta años el consecuencialismo ha evolucionado para responder a numerosas críticas, hasta el punto de que hoy comparte rasgos importantes con las teorías deontológicas. El enfoque informacional de Amartya Sen analiza el tipo y la cantidad de información que una estructura ética necesita. Uso este método para determinar cuánto puede aproximarse a la deontología este nuevo consecuencialismo, y cuán difícil puede ser tal expansión. En el contexto del principio del doble efecto, el enfoque informacional permite mostrar que (...) existe una divergencia inevitable entre la deontología y el consecuencialismo. Esta disparidad manifiesta dimensiones genuinas de la razón práctica. For the last forty years, consequentialism has evolved to answer many reviews on it, as far as today it shares important features with deontological theories. Amartya Sen's informational approach analyses the kind and quantity of information needed by an ethical structure. I use this method to ascertain how far this new consequentialism can approach deontology, and how difficult this enlargement could be. In the context of the deontological principle of double effect, an informational approach can show that there is an unavoidable divergence between deontology and consequentialism. That disparity shows genuine dimensions in practical reason. (shrink)

Mill was not only a philosopher but also a public intellectual, and it is difficult to make compatible an active role in politics with the search of personal and intellectual integrity. This article deals with that problem and in this way with Mill’s approach to the relation between ethics and politics. Mill devised a set of rules to make morally acceptable compromise decisions in politics. I study how this compromise rules are coherent with his general outlook on the science and (...) practice of politics. My point is that Mill defended a kind of political prudence, and that he admitted ultimate conflict of values without abandoning the Principle of Utility at a more general level. (shrink)