Scanlon, permissions, and redundancy: Response to McNaughton and Rawling

Analysis 63 (4):332–337 (2003)
Abstract
According to one formulation of Scanlon’s contractualist principle, certain acts are wrong if they are permitted by principles that are reasonably rejectable because they permit such acts. According to the redundancy objection, if a principle is reasonably rejectable because it permits actions which have feature F, such actions are wrong simply in virtue of having F and not because their having F makes principles permitting them reasonably rejectable. Consequently Scanlon’s contractualist principle adds nothing to the reasons we have not to act wrongly and is redundant.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/1467-8284.00449
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,165
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Moral Blameworthiness and the Reactive Attitudes.Leonard Kahn - 2011 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (2):131-142.
The Redundancy Objection, and Why Scanlon is Not a Contractualist.Tamra Frei - 2009 - Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (1):47-65.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

109 ( #45,745 of 2,171,974 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #326,556 of 2,171,974 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums