Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 (4):380–403 (1997)
It is sometimes claimed that a consequentialist theory such as utilitarianism has problems accommodating the importance of personal commitments to other people. However, by emphasizing the distinction between criteria of rightness and decision procedures, a consequentialist can allow for non-consequentialist decision procedures, such as acting directly on the promptings of natural affection. Furthermore, such non-consequentialist motivational structures can co-exist happily with a commitment to consequentialism. It is possible to be a self-reflective consequentialist who has genuine commitments to individuals and to moral principles, without engaging in self-deception.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Puppies, Pigs, and Potency: A Response to Galvin and Harris.Alastair Norcross - 2012 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 (3):384 - 388.
Similar books and articles
Moral Commitment and Moral Theory.Sarah Stroud - 2001 - Journal of Philosophical Research 26:381-398.
Do Consequentialists Have One Thought Too Many?Elinor Mason - 1999 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (3):243-261.
A Consequentialist Case for Rejecting the Right.Frances Howard-Snyder & Alastair Norcross - 1993 - Journal of Philosophical Research 18:109-125.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads60 ( #86,205 of 2,158,458 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #193,769 of 2,158,458 )
How can I increase my downloads?