Truth and acceptance conditions for moral statements can be identical: Further support for subjective consequentialism

Utilitas 21 (3):337-346 (2009)
Two meanings of "subjective consequentialism" are distinguished: conscious deliberation with the aim of producing maximally-good consequences, versus acting in ways that, given one's evidence set and reasoning capabilities, is subjectively most likely to maximize expected consequences. The latter is opposed to "objective consequentialism," which demands that we act in ways that actually produce the best total consequences. Peter Railton's arguments for a version of objective consequentialism confuse the two subjective forms, and are only effective against the first. After reviewing the arguments of Eric Wiland and Frances Howard-Snyder against objective consequentialism, two of Railton's arguments which might seem to count against the second form of subjective consequentialism are shown to be ineffective. This leaves subjective consequentialism as a viable theory to replace objective consequentialism with.
Keywords objective consequentialism  subjective consequentialism  truth conditions for ethical claims  acceptance conditions for ethical claims  Peter Railton
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0953820809990082
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 32,587
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index

Total downloads
140 ( #39,697 of 2,235,707 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #122,344 of 2,235,707 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature