Search
Close
Search
Advanced Search
Search Menu

Abstract

Non-Consequentialist moral theories posit the existence of moral constraints: prohibitions on performing particular kinds of wrongful acts, regardless of the good those acts could produce. Many have argued that such theories cannot give satisfactory verdicts about what we morally ought to do when there is some probability that we will violate a moral constraint. In this article, I defend Non-Consequentialist theories from this critique. Using a general choice-theoretic framework, I identify various types of Non-Consequentialism that have otherwise been conflated in the debate. I then prove a number of formal possibility and impossibility results establishing which types of Non-Consequentialism can—and which cannot—give us adequate guidance through through a risky world.

non-consequentialism, moral absolutism, moral constraints, decision theory, risk, uncertainty
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Scots Philosophical Association and the University of St Andrews.
This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
Issue Section:
Article
You do not currently have access to this article.
Download all slides