Consequentialism and the subversion of pluralism
Abstract
This paper critically analyses Brad Hooker's attempt to undercut pluralism by arguing that any plausible set of prima facie duties can be derived from a more fundamental rule consequentialist principle. It is argued that this conclusion is foreshadowed by the rationalist and epistemologically realist interpretation that Hooker imposes on his chosen methodology of reflective equilibrium; he is not describing pluralism in its strongest and most plausible version and a more plausible version of pluralism is described and defended.Author's Profile
My notes
Similar books and articles
Let a thousand flowers Bloom: A tour of logical pluralism.Roy T. Cook - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):492-504.
Biocentric consequentialism and value-pluralism: A response to Alan Carter.Robin Attfield - 2005 - Utilitas 17 (1):85-92.
Sophisticated rule consequentialism: Some simple objections.Richard Arneson - 2005 - Philosophical Issues 15 (1):235–251.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
30 (#391,832)
6 months
1 (#452,962)
2009-01-28
Downloads
30 (#391,832)
6 months
1 (#452,962)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Rule Consequentialism and Scope.Leonard Kahn - 2012 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (5):631-646.