A new argument for consequentialism? A reply to Sinnott-Armstrong

Analysis 56 (2):111–115 (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1111/j.0003-2638.1996.00111.x

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,745

External links

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

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

A new argument for consequentialism? A reply to Sinnott-Armstrong.F. Howard-Snyder - 1996 - Analysis 56 (2):111-115.
What is Consequentialism? A Reply to Howard-Snyder.Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 2001 - Utilitas 13 (3):342.
The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism: A Comment: Mozaffar Qizilbash.Mozaffar Qizilbash - 1999 - Utilitas 11 (1):97-105.
The Dimensions of Consequentialism: Reply to Schmidt, Brown, Howard-Snyder, Crisp, Andric and Tanyi, and Gertken.Martin Peterson - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (1):71-82.
The Oughts and Cans of Objective Consequentialism.Erik Carlson - 1999 - Utilitas 11 (1):91-96.
Frances Howard-Snyder.Secondary Qualities - 1999 - American Philosophical Quarterly 36 (3).
Is Rule-Consequentialism a Rubber Duck?Brad Hooker - 1994 - Analysis 54 (2):92 - 97.
Is Objective Consequentialism Compatible with the Principle that “Ought” Implies “Can”?Vuko Andrić - 2016 - Philosophia 44 (1):63-77.
It's immaterial (a reply to Sinnott-armstrong).William G. Lycan - 1999 - Philosophical Papers 28 (2):133-136.
Reply to Sinnott-Armstrong.Judith Jarvis Thomson - 2003 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 41 (S1):92-94.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
194 (#18,112)

6 months
21 (#723,368)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Frances Howard-Snyder
Western Washington University

Citations of this work

Distinguishing agent-relativity from agent-neutrality.Matthew Hammerton - 2019 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (2):239-250.
“Cannot” implies “not ought”.Frances Howard-Snyder - 2006 - Philosophical Studies 130 (2):233-246.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references