Abstract
The ‘publicity requirement on moral rules’ refers to the idea that moral rules must be suitable for public acknowledgement and acceptance. The idea is that moral rules must be suitable for being ‘widely known and explicitly recognized’, suitable for teaching as part of moral education, suitable for guiding behaviour and reactions to behaviour, and thus suitable for justifying one’s behaviour to others. The publicity requirement is now most often associated with John Rawls, who traces it back through Kurt Baier to Kant.1 Ideal Code, Real World, my book defending rule-consequentialism, accepted the publicity requirement.2 In this issue of Ratio, Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer attack the publicity requirement.3 Here is my reply. Is moral rightness is a matter of the application of principles or rules that must be suitable for public acceptance? No, answered Henry Sidgwick, holding that perhaps the principles that determine moral right and wrong should be kept secret, because publicizing these principles would not maximize utility.4 Since I think that forms of consequentialism that are not purely utilitarian may be more plausible than forms that are purely utilitarian, let me make the point in terms of consequentialism instead of utilitarianism. The standard form of act-consequentialism is maximizing and ‘global’, i.e., direct about everything.5 This act-consequentialism includes, among the acts to be evaluated by their consequences, instances of espousing principles, teaching morality, blaming, feeling indignation, feeling guilt, and punishing. According to this form of act-consequentialism, an act that maximizes good consequences might be one that others should blame and even punish, since blaming and punishing the agent of the good-maximizing act might also for some reason maximize good consequences. Likewise, on this standard form of actconsequentialism, it may be right to do what it would be right neither to advocate openly nor even to recommend privately.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/S0039-3681(98)00039-9
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,231
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Disassembling Actor-Network Theory.Dave Elder-Vass - 2015 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 45 (1):100-121.
Towards a Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity.Jan Schmidt - 2007 - Poiesis and Praxis 5 (1):53-69.
In-Between Science and Politics.Karen François - 2011 - Foundations of Science 16 (2-3):161-171.

View all 15 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Publicity in Morality.Brad Hooker - 2010 - Ratio 23:111-117.
A Refutation of Consequentialism.Robert Guay - 2005 - Metaphilosophy 36 (3):348-362.
Rule-Consequentialism's Dilemma.Iain Law - 1999 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (3):263-276.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-12-22

Total views
19 ( #564,723 of 2,455,405 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,037 of 2,455,405 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes