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

A Reappraisal of the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing.David K. Chan - 2010 - In Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke & Harry S. Silverstein (eds.), Action, Ethics, and Responsibility. MIT Press. pp. 25-45.
Consequentializing Moral Dilemmas.Jussi Suikkanen - 2020 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 17 (3):261-289.
Killing, a Conceptual Analysis.Cheng-Chih Tsai - 2017 - Ethical Perspectives 24 (3):467-499.
Life-prolonging killings and their relevance to ethics.Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 1999 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (2):135-147.
Killing and relevantly similarly letting die.Peter Davson-Galle - 1998 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (2):199–201.
Killing and Relevantly Similarly Letting Die.Peter Davson-Galle - 1998 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (2):199-201.
Murdering an Accident Victim: A New Objection to the Bare-Difference Argument.Scott Hill - 2018 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (4):767-778.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-05-03

Downloads
1,517 (#3,877)

6 months
179 (#3,299)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Daniel Muñoz
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill