Ethics 114 (2):269-300 (2004)
In response to the charge that deontic ("argent-centered") restrictions are paradoxical, several recent writers suggest that such restrictions find support within T.M. Scanlon's contractualism. I suggest that this claim is only interesting if these restrictions are stronger than those supported by indirect consequentialism. I argue that contractualism cannot support restrictions any stronger than those supported by indirect consequentialism. The contractualists have mislocated the source of the paradox, which arises under any theory that defines right action in patient-focused terms. Consequentialism and contractualism share this feature, so contractualism cannot support stronger deontic restrictions than consequentialism supports
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Can Contractualism Save Us From Aggregation?Barbara H. Fried - 2012 - Journal of Ethics 16 (1):39-66.
Agency and Self‐Sufficiency in Fichte's Ethics.Michelle Kosch - 2015 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 91 (2):348-380.
Deontological Restrictions and the Self/Other Asymmetry.David Alm - 2008 - Noûs 42 (4):642-672.
Similar books and articles
Introduction : Scanlons Contractualism.Matt Matravers - 2003 - In Scanlon and Contractualism. Frank Cass.
Deontic Norms, Deontic Reasoning, and Deontic Conditionals.Sieghard Beller - 2008 - Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):305 – 341.
Adaptive Domains of Deontic Reasoning.Laurence Fiddick - 2006 - Philosophical Explorations 9 (1):105 – 116.
A Deliberative Model of Contractualism.Nicholas Southwood - 2008 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (2):183-208.
Deontic Restrictions Are Not Agent-Relative Restrictions.Eric Mack - 1998 - Social Philosophy and Policy 15 (2):61.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #232,496 of 2,153,857 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #225,089 of 2,153,857 )
How can I increase my downloads?