Cham: Springer (2016)
AbstractThis book argues that critics of consequentialism have not been able to make a successful and comprehensive case against all versions of consequentialism because they have been using the wrong methodology. This methodology relies on the crucial assumption that consequentialist theories share a defining characteristic. This text interprets consequentialism, instead, as a family resemblance term. On that basis, it argues quite an ambitions claim, viz. that all versions of consequentialism should be rejected, including those that have been created in response to conventional criticisms. The book covers a number of classic themes in normative ethics, metaethics and, particularly, ethical methodology and also touches upon certain aspects of experimental moral philosophy. It is written in clear language and is analytic in its argumentative style. As such, the book should appeal to students, graduate students as well as professional academics with an interest in analytic moral philosophy.
9783319392486 3319392484 331981849X 3319392506 9783319392493
This chapter discusses the area of normative ethics and introduces crucial notions that are used throughout the book. After defining normative ethics as the study of moral theories, the idea of a moral theory is anatomized and important concepts contained in it are explained. Most importantly, the t... see more
This chapter discusses methodological issues. In a first step, it shows that the methodic procedure critics typically adopt to make a case against consequentialism is vulnerable to a simple strategy of counter–argumentation: the Humpty Dumpty Defence. It consists in rejecting the definition of conse... see more
This chapter reviews the four steps of the argument against consequentialism and highlights controversial premises. In doing that, it shows how future research could conceivably strengthen the case against consequentialism further. It also comments on the conclusiveness of the argument and suggests ... see more
Joining the Dots
This chapter completes the fourth and final step of the Family Resemblance Approach, which was introduced in Chap. 3. It shows that all versions of consequentialism that could not be eliminated in previous steps of the argument apparently violate certain fixed points in our moral thinking. The argum... see more
Consequentialism and Its Variants
After Chap. 3 introduced the Family Resemblance Approach to criticizing consequentialism, this chapter completes its first three steps. The first step consists in examining a paradigmatic consequentialist moral theory, viz. Classic Utilitarianism. It is factorized into a set of logical components. T... see more
This chapter discusses the metaethical underpinnings of the argument against consequentialism. It introduces the Rawlsian Approach to theory evaluation in normative ethics which proposes a criterion for the adequacy of moral theories. Various interpretations of this idea are discussed before they ar... see more
Similar books and articles
The Case Against Consequentialism: Methodological Issues.Nikil Mukerji - 2013 - In Miguel Holtje, Thomas Spitzley & Wolfgang Spohn (eds.), GAP.8 Proceedings. GAP (2013). Gesellschaft für Analytische Philosophie. pp. 654-665.
The plausibility of satisficing and the role of good in ordinary thought.Mark Van Roojen - 2004 - In Michael Byron (ed.), Satisficing and Maximizing: Moral Theorists on Practical Reason. Cambridge University Press.
How Satisficers Get Away with Murder.Tim Mulgan - 2001 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9 (1):41 – 46.
Moral Demands and Ethical Theory: The Case of Consequentialism.Attila Tanyi - 2015 - In Barry Dainton & Howard Robinson (eds.), Bloomsbury Companion to Analytic Philosophy. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 500-527.
Consequentialism and Moral Rationalism.Douglas W. Portmore - 2011 - In Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics. Oxford University Press.
The Dimensions of Consequentialism: Ethics, Equality and Risk.Martin Peterson - 2013 - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Argument from Self-Creation: A Refutation of Act-Consequentialism and a Defense of Moral Options.Alex Rajczi - 2011 - American Philosophical Quarterly 48 (4):315.
In defense of a version of satisficing consequentialism.Jason Rogers - 2010 - Utilitas 22 (2):198-221.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Should we discount the welfare of future generations? : Ramsey and Suppes versus Koopmans and Arrow.Graciela Chichilnisky, Peter J. Hammond & Nicholas Stern - unknown
Fundamental utilitarianism and intergenerational equity with extinction discounting.Graciela Chichilnisky, Peter J. Hammond & Nicholas Stern - forthcoming - Social Choice and Welfare.
References found in this work
No references found.