Consequentialism and Permissibility
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12227652 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Brian Mcelwee (University of Oxford, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 171-183 |
| Publication date | 2010-05-10 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Utilitas (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0953-8208 • E-ISSN: 1741-6183 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0953820810000075 |
| OpenAlex | W2117114883 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 7 |
Scalar consequentialism, recently championed by Alastair Norcross, holds that the value of an action varies according to the goodness of its consequences, but eschews all judgements of moral permissibility and impermissibility. I show that the strongest version of scalar consequentialism is not vulnerable to the objection that it is insufficiently action-guiding. Instead, the principle objection to the scalar view is simply that it leaves out important and interesting ethical judgements. In demonstrating this, I counter Rob Lawlor's contention that consequentialists cannot consistently care about permissibility and impermissibility
Action (physics · Consequentialism · Economics · Egalitarianism · Epistemology · Law and economics · Physics · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Sociology · Ethics in medical practice · Free Will and Agency · Law · Philosophy · War, Ethics, and Justification
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,57 |
| Citation span | 2019 - 2024 (6) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |