A new argument for consequentialism? A reply to Sinnott-Armstrong

Analysis 56 (2):111–115 (1996)
Authors
Abstract This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.0003-2638.1996.00111.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 35,905
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

“Cannot” Implies “Not Ought”.Frances Howard-Snyder - 2006 - Philosophical Studies 130 (2):233-246.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

It's Immaterial (a Reply to Sinnott-Armstrong).William G. Lycan - 1999 - Philosophical Papers 28 (2):133-136.
Reply to Sinnott-Armstrong.Allan Gibbard - 1993 - Philosophical Studies 69 (2-3):315 - 327.
Problems for Sinnott-Armstrong's Moral Contrastivism.Peter Baumann - 2008 - Philosophical Quarterly 58 (232):463–470.
An Argument for Consequentialism.Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 1992 - Philosophical Perspectives 6:399-421.
Non-Inferential Moral Knowledge.Elizabeth Tropman - 2011 - Acta Analytica 26 (4):355-366.
Does 'Ought' Conversationally Implicate 'Can'?Bart Streumer - 2003 - European Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):219–228.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
153 ( #39,491 of 2,293,854 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #253,745 of 2,293,854 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature