Rule-Consequentialism's Dilemma |
| |
Authors: | Iain Law |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) Department of Moral Philosophy, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Fife, KY16 9AL, Scotland |
| |
Abstract: | This paper examines recent attempts to defend Rule-Consequentialism against a traditional objection. That objection takes the form of a dilemma, that either Rule-Consequentialism collapses into Act-Consequentialism or it is incoherent. Attempts to avoid this dilemma based on the idea that using RC has better results than using AC are rejected on the grounds that they conflate the ideas of a criterion of rightness and a decision procedure. Other strategies, Brad Hooker's prominent amongst them, involving the thought that RC need contain no overarching concern to maximize the good are acknowledged to avoid the original dilemma, but lead to further problems of motivating and justifying RC in the absence of such a concern. The paper argues that Hooker's attempt to deal with these problems by using a 'Reflective Equilibrium plus method is unsuccessful. |
| |
Keywords: | act-consequentialism criterion of rightness decision procedure Hooker moral theory reflective equilibrium rule-consequentialism |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|