You Don't Have to Do What's Best! (A problem for consequentialists and other teleologists)

In Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics. Oxford University Press (2011)

Authors
S. Andrew Schroeder
Claremont McKenna College
Abstract
Define teleology as the view that requirements hold in virtue of facts about value or goodness. Teleological views are quite popular, and in fact some philosophers (e.g. Dreier, Smith) argue that all (plausible) moral theories can be understood teleologically. I argue, however, that certain well-known cases show that the teleologist must at minimum assume that there are certain facts that an agent ought to know, and that this means that requirements can't, in general, hold in virtue of facts about value or goodness. I then show that even if we grant those 'ought's teleology still runs into problems. A positive justification of teleology looks like it will require an argument of this form: O(X); if X, then O(Y); therefore O(Y). But this form of argument isn't in general valid. I conclude by offering two positive suggestions for those attracted to a teleological outlook.
Keywords Teleology  Consequentialize  Consequentialism
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The View From Nowhere.Thomas Nagel - 1986 - Oxford University Press.
Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford University Press.
The Limits of Morality.Shelly Kagan - 1989 - Oxford University Press.

View all 48 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

In Dubious Battle: Uncertainty and the Ethics of Killing.Seth Lazar - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (4):859-883.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Consequentialist Teleology and the Valuation of States of Affairs.Robert F. Card - 2004 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (3):253-265.
Evolution: Teleology or Chance? [REVIEW]F. J. K. Soontiëns - 1991 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 22 (1):133-141.
Is the Right Prior to the Good?Julian Fink - 2007 - South African Journal of Philosophy 26 (2):143-149.
On McCormick and Teleological Morality.Frederick S. Carney - 1978 - Journal of Religious Ethics 6 (1):81 - 107.
Consequentialize This.Campbell Brown - 2011 - Ethics 121 (4):749-771.
A Dilemma for Rule-Consequentialism.Jussi Suikkanen - 2008 - Philosophia 36 (1):141-150.
Against Satisficing Consequentialism.Ben Bradley - 2006 - Utilitas 18 (2):97-108.
Teleology.Andrew Woodfield - 1976 - Cambridge University Press.
Kant's Argument for the Autonomy of Biology.Clark Zumbach - 1981 - Nature and System 3:67 - 79.
Aquinas and Modern Contractualism.Don Adams - 2009 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17 (4):509 – 530.
Leibniz on Teleology and the Intelligibility of Nature.James D. Madden - 2003 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 77:173-188.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-06-24

Total views
451 ( #12,447 of 2,309,226 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
61 ( #11,131 of 2,309,226 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature