Journal of Value Inquiry 51 (1):51-68 (2017)

Authors
Fergus Peace
Oxford University
Abstract
Consequentialists claim that their theory is simply that the right action is whichever one will lead to the best state of affairs - and that this formulation provides a powerful intuitive ground for accepting consequentialism. Recent arguments in value theory threaten to show that this formulation lacks either coherent meaning, because states of affairs cannot be good simpliciter, or philosophical power, because their goodness provides no reason to bring them about. I respond to two such arguments - from Judith Jarvis Thomson and Richard Kraut - contending that none can be made to work in a way which undercuts consequentialism's simple formulation.
Keywords goodness  consequentialism  value theory  meta-ethics  ethics  Judith Jarvis Thomson  normativity
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10790-016-9553-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,091
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Two Distinctions in Goodness.Christine Korsgaard - 1997 - In Thomas L. Carson & Paul K. Moser (eds.), Morality and the Good Life. Oup Usa.
Rights, Goals, and Fairness.T. M. Scanlon - 1977 - Erkenntnis 11 (1):81 - 95.
Objectivism and Relational Good.Connie S. Rosati - 2008 - Social Philosophy and Policy 25 (1):314-349.
Goodness.Judith Jarvis Thomson - 2013 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (2):467-475.
Normativity.Nicholas L. Sturgeon - 2010 - Analysis 70 (4):744-753.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Is Anything Just Plain Good?Mahrad Almotahari & Adam Hosein - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (6):1485-1508.
In Defence of Good Simpliciter.Richard Rowland - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (5):1371-1391.
The Demands of Consequentialism.Tim Mulgan - 2001 - Oxford University Press.
Goodness and Advice.Amy Gutmann (ed.) - 2003 - Princeton University Press.
Epistemic Consequentialism.Jeffrey Dunn - 2015 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Part One: Goodness.Judith Jarvis Thomson - 2009 - In Judith JarvisHG Thomson (ed.), Goodness and Advice. Princeton University Press. pp. 1-42.
A New Argument Against Rule Consequentialism.Christopher Woodard - 2008 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (3):247-261.
The Rejection of Scalar Consequentialism.Rob Lawlor - 2009 - Utilitas 21 (1):100-116.
Good and Bad Actions.Alastair Norcross - 1997 - Philosophical Review 106 (1):1-34.
Consequentialist Teleology and the Valuation of States of Affairs.Robert F. Card - 2004 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (3):253-265.
A Refutation of Consequentialism.Robert Guay - 2005 - Metaphilosophy 36 (3):348-362.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-06-05

Total views
52 ( #218,083 of 2,506,353 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #209,812 of 2,506,353 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes