Fundamental and technical methods of ethics
Consequentialists and deontologists alike tacitly presume that moral decisions should be reached from basic assessments of theoretically set moral value. The presumption they share, I argue, is seriously mistaken. We need to distinguish two general methods of reaching moral decisions, that of the mo...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Proquest
1996
|
| Dans: |
International journal of value-based management
Année: 1996, Volume: 9, Numéro: 1, Pages: 89-100 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Decision-making
B Ethics B moral decision B Deontology B fundamental analysis B Moral Philosophy B technical analysis B Values B moral values B Consequentialism |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | Consequentialists and deontologists alike tacitly presume that moral decisions should be reached from basic assessments of theoretically set moral value. The presumption they share, I argue, is seriously mistaken. We need to distinguish two general methods of reaching moral decisions, that of the moral fundamentalist and that of the moral technician. Moral fundamentalists and technicians differ in their methods, but not in their aims. The distinction between the two general methods of ethics is particularly important for consequentialism. I maintain that a consequentialist may be without inconsistency a utilitarian fundamentalist and a deontological technician. I suggest that when we pay heed to our epistemic constraints, we have strong consequentialist grounds for adopting this unusual position. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1572-8528 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: International journal of value-based management
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/BF00420510 |