The moral relevance of cost

Philosophical Studies 112 (2):127 - 134 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Consequentialists do not deny that cost to the agent is a morallyrelevant consideration. For, they do include cost to the agent inthe calculation of the overall good. What they deny, however, isthat cost to the agent is a morally relevant factor independentlyof its impact on the overall good. I argue in this paper that, ifone rejects the claim that cost to the agent is a morallyrelevant factor on its own right, one is then committed toaccepting some `hyper' counter-intuitive moral claims. I callthese claims hyper counter-intuitive because they are at a moreextreme level of counter-intuitiveness than the ones usuallyassociated with consequentialism.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,853

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How Much for the Child?Christian Barry & Gerhard Øverland - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):189-204.
Cost-benefit analysis and non-utilitarian ethics.Rosemary Lowry & Martin Peterson - 2012 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11 (3):1470594-11416767.
Futility, Autonomy, and Cost in End-of-Life Care.Mary Ann Baily - 2011 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (2):172-182.
Economics, Risk-Cost-Benefit Analysis, and the Linearity Assumption.K. S. Shrader-Frechette - 1982 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:217 - 232.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
46 (#345,620)

6 months
7 (#430,488)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Bashshar Haydar
American University of Beirut

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references