Should Kantians be consequentialists?

Ratio 22 (1):126-135 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Parfit argues that a form of rule consequentialism can be derived from the most plausible formulation of the fundamental principle of Kantian ethics. And so he concludes that Kantians should be consequentialists. I argue that we have good reason to reject two of the auxiliary premises that figure in Parfit's derivation of rule consequentialism from Kantianism. 1.

Other Versions

reprint Ross, Jacob (2009) "Should Kantians Be Consequentialists?". In Suikkanen, Jussi, Cottingham, John, Essays on Derek Parfit's On what matters, pp. 144–153: Wiley-Blackwell (2009)

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,824

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Parfit on Reasons and Rule Consequentialism.Douglas W. Portmore - 1998 - In Martina Herrmann, Reading Parfit. Springer Netherlands.
A Counterexample to Parfit's Rule Consequentialism.Jacob Nebel - 2012 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 6 (2):1-10.
Climb every mountain?Michael Ridge - 2009 - Ratio 22 (1):59-77.
Rule Consequentialism and Moral Relativism in advance.Ryan Jenkins - forthcoming - Journal of Philosophical Research.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
299 (#99,612)

6 months
10 (#395,840)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jake Ross
Illinois State University

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references