A Dilemma for Rule-Consequentialism
- Jussi Suikkanen
- … 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.
Rule-consequentialists tend to argue for their normative theory by claiming that their view matches our moral convictions just as well as a pluralist set of Rossian duties. As an additional advantage, rule-consequentialism offers a unifying justification for these duties. I challenge the first part of the ruleconsequentialist argument and show that Rossian duties match our moral convictions better than the rule-consequentialist principles. I ask the rule-consequentialists a simple question. In the case that circumstances change, is the wrongness of acts determined by the ideal principles for the earlier circumstances or by the ideal ones for the new circumstances? I argue that whichever answer the rule-consequentialists give the view leads to normative conclusions that conflict with our moral intuitions. Because some set of Rossian duties can avoid similar problems, rule-consequentialism fails in the reflective equilibrium test advocated by the rule-consequentialists.
- Brandt, R. (1989). Morality and its critics. American Philosophical Quarterly, 26, 89–100.
- Brandt, R. (1996). Facts, values, and morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Daniels, N. (1979). Wide reflective equilibrium and theory of acceptance in ethics. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 256–282. CrossRef
- Gaut, B. (1999). Rag-bags, disputes and moral pluralism. Utilitas, 11, 37–48. CrossRef
- Hooker, B. (1990). Rule-consequentialism. Mind, 99, 67–77. CrossRef
- Hooker, B. (1996). Ross-style pluralism versus rule-consequentialism. Mind, 105, 531–552. CrossRef
- Hooker, B. (2000a). Ideal code, real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hooker, B. (2000b). Reflective equilibrium and rule-consequentialism. In B. Hooker, E. Mason, & D. Miller (Eds.), Morality, rules, and consequences (pp. 222–238). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
- Hooker, B. (2003). Contractualism, spare wheel, aggregation. In M. Matravers (Ed.), Scanlon and contractualism (pp. 53–76). London: Frank Cass.
- Hooker, B. (2004). Review of Mulgan’s demands of consequentialism. Philosophy, 78, 289–296. CrossRef
- Hooker, B. (2005). Reply to Arneson and McIntyre. Philosophical Issues, 15, 264–281. CrossRef
- McNaughton, D., & Rawling, P. (1998). On defending deontology. Utilitas, 11, 37–54.
- Montague, P. (2000). Why rule-consequentialism is not superior to Ross-style pluralism. In B. Hooker, E. Mason, & D. Miller (Eds.), Morality, rules, and consequences (pp. 203–211). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
- Mulgan, T. (2001). The demands of consequentialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Ross, W. D. (1930). The right and the good. Oxford: Clarendon.
- Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- A Dilemma for Rule-Consequentialism
Volume 36, Issue 1 , pp 141-150
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Rossian pluralism
- Reflective equilibrium test
- Jussi Suikkanen (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Philosophy Department, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AA, UK