- Tom Dougherty
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
According to the “Textbook View,” there is an extensional dispute between consequentialists and deontologists, in virtue of the fact that only the latter defend “agent-relative” principles—principles that require an agent to have a special concern with making sure that she does not perform certain types of action. I argue that, contra the Textbook View, there are agent-neutral versions of deontology. I also argue that there need be no extensional disagreement between the deontologist and consequentialist, as characterized by the Textbook View.
- Anscombe, GEM (1958) Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy 33: pp. 1-19 CrossRef
- Bentham, J. (1903). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation; G. E. Moore, Principia ethica, rev. ed., ed. Thomas Baldwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Broome, J (1991) Weighing goods. Blackwell, New York
- Dreier, J. (1993). The structure of normative theories. The Monist, 76, 22–40.
- Feldman, F (1995) Adjusting utility for justice: A consequentialist reply to the objection from justice. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55: pp. 567-585 CrossRef
- Jacobsen, D (2008) Utilitarianism without consequentialism. Philosophical Review 117: pp. 159-191 CrossRef
- Kagan, S (1989) The limits of morality. Clarendon Press, Oxford
- McNaughton, D, Rawling, P (1991) Agent-relativity and the doing-happening distinction. Philosophical Studies 63: pp. 167-185 CrossRef
- McNaughton, D, Rawling, P (1992) Honoring and promoting values. Ethics 102: pp. 835-843 CrossRef
- Nozick, R (1974) Anarchy State and Utopia. Basic Books, New York
- Pettit, P (2000) Non-consequentialism and universalizability. The Philosophical Quarterly 50: pp. 175-190 CrossRef
- Portmore, D (2005) Combining teleological ethics with evaluator relativism: A promising result. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86: pp. 95-113 CrossRef
- Ridge, M. (2008). Reasons for action: agent-neutral vs. agent-relative. In: E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/reasons-agent/.
- Scheffler, S (1994) The rejection of consequentialism. Oxford University Press, Oxford CrossRef
- Schroeder, M (2007) Teleology, agent-relative value, and good. Ethics 117: pp. 265-295 CrossRef
- Sen, A (1982) Rights and agency. Philosophy and Public Affairs 11: pp. 3-39
- Smith, M (2009) Two types of consequentialism. Philosophical Issues 19: pp. 257-272 CrossRef
- Thomson, JJ (1993) Goodness and utilitarianism. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 67: pp. 145-159 CrossRef
- Agent-neutral deontology
Volume 163, Issue 2 , pp 527-537
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Tom Dougherty (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Center for Ethics in Society, Stanford University, 482 Galvez Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA