Philosophical Review 106 (1):1-34 (1997)
It is usually assumed to be possible, and sometimes even desirable, for consequentialists to make judgments about both the rightness and the goodness of actions. Whether a particular action is right or wrong is one question addressed by a consequentialist theory such as utilitarianism. Whether the action is good or bad, and how good or bad it is, are two others. I will argue in this paper that consequentialism cannot provide a satisfactory account of the goodness of actions, on the most natural approach to the question. I will also argue that, strictly speaking, a consequentialist cannot judge one action to be better or worse than another action performed at a different time or by a different person. Even if such theories are thought to be primarily concerned with rightness, this would be surprising, but in the light of recent work challenging the place of rightness in consequentialism1, it seems particularly disturbing. If actions are neither right (or wrong) nor good (or bad), what moral judgments do apply to them? Doesn't the rejection of both rightness and goodness, as applied to actions, leave consequentialism unacceptably impoverished? On the contrary, I will argue that consequentialism is actually strengthened by the realization that actions can only be judged as better or worse than possible alternatives.
|Keywords||Analytic Philosophy Contemporary Philosophy General Interest|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Consequentialism and Cluelessness.James Lenman - 2000 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 29 (4):342-370.
Does Morality Demand Our Very Best? On Moral Prescriptions and the Line of Duty.Michael Ferry - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 165 (2):573-589.
Rule Consequentialism Makes Sense After All.Tyler Cowen - 2011 - Social Philosophy and Policy 28 (2):212-231.
Similar books and articles
Surprising Connections Between Knowledge and Action: The Robustness of the Epistemic Side-Effect Effect.James R. Beebe & Mark Jensen - 2012 - Philosophical Psychology 25 (5):689 - 715.
Critical Notice of Child Versus Childmaker: Future Persons and Present Duties in Ethics and the Law.Peter Vallentyne - 2000 - Noûs 34 (4):634–647.
Deontology.David McNaughton, Florida State University & Piers Rawling - 2007 - In David Copp (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oup Usa.
Teleology, Consequentialism, and the Past.Peter Vallentyne - 1988 - Journal of Value Inquiry 22 (2):89-101.
A Consequentialist Case for Rejecting the Right.Frances Howard-Snyder & Alastair Norcross - 1993 - Journal of Philosophical Research 18:109-125.
Rightness and Goodness in Agent-Based Virtue Ethics.Liezl van Zyl - 2011 - Journal of Philosophical Research 36:103-114.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads78 ( #67,493 of 2,172,599 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #117,383 of 2,172,599 )
How can I increase my downloads?