Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 115 (1pt1):75-92 (2015)

Authors
Jens Timmermann
University of St. Andrews
Abstract
The way we use terminology matters. There are words, ordinary and philosophical, that we should do without because they are ill-defined, ambiguous or confused. If we use them we will at best be saying little. At worst, they will make us ask the wrong questions and leave the right ones unasked. In this paper, I argue that ‘deontology’ is such a word. It is defined negatively as non-teleological or non-consequentialist, and therefore does not designate a distinct class of moral theories, let alone a single one. Moreover, the question whether Kantian ethics is ‘deontological’ is likely to obscure what is distinctive and interesting about it. The word ‘deontology’ should be banished from the classroom. It may be best to abandon it altogether
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9264.2015.00385.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,232
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Modern Moral Philosophy.G. E. M. Anscombe - 1958 - Philosophy 33 (124):1 - 19.

View all 32 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Paradox for Weak Deontology.Michael Huemer - 2009 - Utilitas 21 (4):464-477.
Deontology and Defeat.Michael Bergmann - 2000 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (1):87-102.
A Third Method of Ethics?Roger Crisp - 2015 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90 (2):257-273.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-08-04

Total views
56 ( #165,518 of 2,329,878 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #48,396 of 2,329,878 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes