Philosophical Studies 175 (12):3131-3144 (2018)

Neil Sinhababu
National University of Singapore
The rightness and wrongness of actions fits on a continuous scale. This fits the way we evaluate actions chosen among a diverse range of options, even though English speakers don’t use the words “righter” and “wronger”. I outline and defend a version of scalar consequentialism, according to which rightness is a matter of degree, determined by how good the consequences are. Linguistic resources are available to let us truly describe actions simply as right. Some deontological theories face problems in accounting for degrees of rightness, as they don't invoke continuous parameters among the right-making features of action.
Keywords scalar consequentialism  right  deontology
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-017-0998-y
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
On Virtue Ethics.Rosalind Hursthouse - 1999 - Oxford University Press.

View all 49 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Consequentialism.Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - forthcoming - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Continuity in Morality and Law.Re'em Segev - forthcoming - Theoretical Inquiries in Law.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
11,337 ( #92 of 2,342,839 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1,026 ( #169 of 2,342,839 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes