- Tom Dougherty
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
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, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33, 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. New York: Blackwell.
- 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(3), 567–585. CrossRef
- Jacobsen, D. (2008). Utilitarianism without consequentialism. Philosophical Review, 117(2), 159–191. CrossRef
- Kagan, S. (1989). The limits of morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- McNaughton, D., & Rawling, P. (1991). Agent-relativity and the doing-happening distinction. Philosophical Studies, 63(2), 167–185. CrossRef
- McNaughton, D., & Rawling, P. (1992). Honoring and promoting values. Ethics, 102(4), 835–843. CrossRef
- Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy state and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
- Pettit, P. (2000). Non-consequentialism and universalizability. The Philosophical Quarterly, 50(199), 175–190. CrossRef
- Portmore, D. (2005). Combining teleological ethics with evaluator relativism: A promising result. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 86, 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: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Schroeder, M. (2007). Teleology, agent-relative value, and good. Ethics, 117, 265–295. CrossRef
- Sen, A. (1982). Rights and agency. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 11, 3–39.
- Smith, M. (2009). Two types of consequentialism. Philosophical Issues, 19(1), 257–272. CrossRef
- Thomson, J. J. (1993). Goodness and utilitarianism. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 67, 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