The Rejection of Consequentializing

Journal of Philosophy 118 (2):79-96 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Consequentialists say we may always promote the good. Deontologists object: not if that means killing one to save five. “Consequentializers” reply: this act is wrong, but it is not for the best, since killing is worse than letting die. I argue that this reply undercuts the “compellingness” of consequentialism, which comes from an outcome-based view of action that collapses the distinction between killing and letting die.

Links

PhilArchive

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

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-05-03

Downloads
2,118 (#4,323)

6 months
293 (#7,749)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Daniel Muñoz
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Citations of this work

Sources of transitivity.Daniel Muñoz - 2023 - Economics and Philosophy 39 (2):285-306.
Consequentialists Must Kill.Christopher Howard - 2021 - Ethics 131 (4):727-753.
An Epistemic Version of Pascal's Wager.Elizabeth Jackson - forthcoming - Journal of the American Philosophical Association:1-17.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Anarchy, State, and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - New York: Basic Books.
Principia ethica.George Edward Moore - 1903 - Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications. Edited by Thomas Baldwin.
The methods of ethics.Henry Sidgwick - 1874 - Bristol, U.K.: Thoemmes Press. Edited by Emily Elizabeth Constance Jones.
Anarchy, State, and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - Philosophy 52 (199):102-105.

View all 46 references / Add more references