Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics 4:34-52 (2014)
AbstractDerek Parfit’s On What Matters endorses Kantian Contractualism, the normative theory that everyone ought to follow the rules that everyone could rationally will that everyone accept. This paper explores Parfit’s argument that Kantian Contractualism converges with Rule Consequentialism. A pivotal concept in Parfit’s argument is the concept of impartiality, which he seems to equate agent-neutrality. This paper argues that equating impartiality and agent-neutrality is insufficient, since some agent-neutral considerations are silly and some are not impartial. Perhaps more importantly, there is little realistic prospect of Kantian Contractualism converging with Rule Consequentialism unless the same impartial reasons drive rule selection in the two theories.
Similar books and articles
Agreement Matters: Critical Notice of Derek Parfit, On What Matters.Stephen Darwall - 2014 - Philosophical Review 123 (1):79-105.
A Contractualist Defense of Rule Consequentialism.Sanford Levy - 2013 - Journal of Philosophical Research 38:189-201.
Agent Neutrality is the Exclusive Feature of Consequentialism.Desheng Zong - 2000 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 38 (4):676-693.
Parfit on Reasons and Rule Consequentialism.Douglas W. Portmore - forthcoming - In Simon Kirchin (ed.), Reading Parfit. Routledge.
Might Kantian contractualism be the supreme principle of morality?Gideon Rosen - 2009 - Ratio 22 (1):78-97.
Consequentialism, agent-neutrality, and mahāyāna ethics.Charles Goodman - 2008 - Philosophy East and West 58 (1):17-35.
Inconsistency and the theoretical commitments of Hooker's rule-consequentialism.Robert F. Card - 2007 - Utilitas 19 (2):243-258.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads