Utilitas 15 (2):237-47 (2003)
Derek Parfit, Philip Pettit and Michael Smith defend a version of consequentialism that covers everything. I argue that this version of consequentialism is false. Consequentialism, I argue, can only cover things that belong to a combination of things that agents can bring about.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Combinative Consequentialism and the Problem of Act Versions.Johan E. Gustafsson - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (3):585–596.
Right Motive, Wrong Action: Direct Consequentialism and Evaluative Conflict.Jennie Louise - 2006 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (1):65-85.
Similar books and articles
How Satisficers Get Away with Murder.Tim Mulgan - 2001 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9 (1):41 – 46.
Dual-Ranking Act-Consequentialism.Douglas W. Portmore - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 138 (3):409 - 427.
Blameless Wrongdoing and Agglomeration: A Response to Streumer.Campbell Brown - 2005 - Utilitas 17 (2):222-225.
The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism: A Comment.Mozaffar Qizilbash - 1999 - Utilitas 11 (1):97-105.
7 Consequentialism.Douglas W. Portmore - 2011 - In Christian Miller (ed.), Continuum Companion to Ethics. Continuum. pp. 143.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads125 ( #35,990 of 2,132,955 )
Recent downloads (6 months)28 ( #11,861 of 2,132,955 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.