Impartial Reasons, Moral Demands
Consequentialism is often charged with demandingness objections which arise in response to the theory’s commitment to impartiality. It might be thought that the only way that consequentialists can avoid such demandingness objections is by dropping their commitment to impartialism. However, I outline...
Auteur principal: | |
---|---|
Type de support: | Électronique Article |
Langue: | Anglais |
Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Publié: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
2011
|
Dans: |
Ethical theory and moral practice
Année: 2011, Volume: 14, Numéro: 4, Pages: 457-466 |
Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Irrationality
B Impartiality B Utilitarianism B Demandingness B Moral Obligation B Consequentialism |
Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Résumé: | Consequentialism is often charged with demandingness objections which arise in response to the theory’s commitment to impartiality. It might be thought that the only way that consequentialists can avoid such demandingness objections is by dropping their commitment to impartialism. However, I outline and defend a framework within which all reasons for action are impartially grounded, yet which can avoid demandingness objections. I defend this framework against what might appear to be a strong objection, namely the claim that anyone who accepts the theory will be practically irrational. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1572-8447 |
Contient: | Enthalten in: Ethical theory and moral practice
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s10677-010-9256-5 |