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

Analysis 56 (2):111–115 (1996)
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
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,188
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 - 2004 - Philosophical Studies 130 (2):233 - 246.
"Cannot” Implies “Not Ought".Frances Howard-Snyder - 2004 - 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.
On Sinnott-Armstrong's Case Against Moral Intuitionism.Jonathan Smith - 2010 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (1):75 - 88.
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.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

145 ( #31,462 of 2,154,091 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

7 ( #105,233 of 2,154,091 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums