Consequentialism, Deontology and the Morality of Promising

  • Nikil Mukerji
Part of the Ethical Economy book series (SEEP, volume 43)


In normative ethics there has been a long-standing debate between consequentialists and deontologists. To settle this dispute moral theorists have often used a selective approach. They have focused on particular aspects of our moral practice and have teased out what consequentialists and deontologists have to say about it. One of the focal points of this debate has been the morality of promising. In this paper I review arguments on both sides and examine whether consequentialists or deontologists offer us a more plausible account of promissory obligation. My conclusion is negative. Given the arguments on the table, I argue, we should conclude that the debate is in a stalemate. It is, therefore, hard to see how the issue of promissory obligation could help us choose between consequentialism and deontology.


Business Ethicist Moral Theorist Moral Duty World History Plausible Account 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allen, H.J. 1967. A logical condition for the redescription of actions in terms of their consequences? The Journal of Value Inquiry 1(2): 132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 2010. Rhetoric. ed. W. Roberts, and W.D. Ross. New York: Cosimo.Google Scholar
  3. Atwell, J.E. 1969. Oldenquist on rules and consequences. Mind 78: 576–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birnbacher, D. 1999. Ethics and social science: Which kind of co-operation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2: 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bok, S. 1978. Lying. Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  6. Broome, J. 1991. Weighing goods, equality, uncertainty and time. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Cocking, D., and J. Oakley. 1995. Indirect consequentialism, friendship, and the problem of alienation. Ethics 106(1): 86–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Danto, A.C. 1965. Basic actions. American Philosophical Quarterly 2(2): 141–148.Google Scholar
  9. Donagan, A. 1979. The theory of morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dreier, J. 1993. Structures of normative theories. The Monist 76: 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaus, G.F. 2001a. What is deontology? Part one: Orthodox views. The Journal of Value Inquiry 35: 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaus, G.F. 2001b. What is deontology? Part two: Reasons to act. The Journal of Value Inquiry 35: 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Habib, A. 2008. Promises. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E. Zalta, Winter 2008. Accessed 15 Dec 2011.
  14. Hill, T.E. 1973. Servility and self-respect. The Monist 57(1): 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hodgson, D.H. 1967. Consequences of utilitarianism. A study in normative ethics and legal theory. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  16. Homann, K. 2002. Vorteile und Anreize: zur Grundlegung einer Ethik der Zukunft. ed. C. Lütge. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  17. Hörster, N. 1973. Is act-utilitarian truth-telling self-defeating? Mind 82: 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hume, D. 1888/1960. A treatise of human nature, ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon. Google Scholar
  19. Kagan, S. 1992. The structure of normative ethics. Philosophical Perspectives 6: 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kagan, S. 1998. Normative ethics. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kamm, F. 2007. Intricate ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kant, I. 1785. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.Google Scholar
  23. Kant, I. 1799. Über ein vermeintliches Recht aus Menschenliebe zu lügen (1797). In Immanuel Kant’s vermischte Schriften. Riga: in der Rengerschen Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
  24. Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science. Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  25. Lewis, D. 1972. Utilitarianism and truthfulness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50(1): 17–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lütge, C. 2005. Economic ethics, business ethics and the idea of mutual advantages. Business Ethics: A European Review 14(2): 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Macklin, R. 1967a. Actions, consequences and ethical theory. The Journal of Value Inquiry 1: 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Macklin, R. 1967b. A rejoinder. The Journal of Value Inquiry 1: 135–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore, G.E. 1903/1959. Principia ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mukerji, N., and C. Schumacher. 2008. How to have your cake and eat it too: Resolving the efficiency-equity trade-off in minimum wage legislation. Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics 19(4): 315–340.Google Scholar
  31. Nida-Rümelin, J. 1993. Kritik des Konsequentialismus. München: Oldenbourg Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. Nida-Rümelin, J. 1995. Kann der Erzengel die Konsequentialismus-Kritik entkräften? In Ethische Essays, ed. J. Nida-Rümelin (2002). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  33. Norcross, A. 2011. Act-utilitarianism and promissory obligation. In Promises and agreements, philosophical essays, ed. H. Sheinman. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Oldenquist, A. 1966. Rules and consequences. Mind 75(298): 180–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parfit, D. 1986. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parfit, D. 2011. On what matters, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Petrick, M., and I. Pies. 2007. In search for rules that secure gains from cooperation: The heuristic value of social dilemmas for normative institutional economics. European Journal of Law and Economics 23(3): 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Portmore, D.W. 2011. Commonsense consequentialism. Wherein morality meets rationality. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prichard, H.A. 1940/2002. The obligation to keep a promise. In Prichard, H.A. 2002. Moral writings, ed. J. MacAdam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rachels, J. 1997. Can ethics provide answers? And other essays in moral philosophy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  41. Rawls, J. 1955. Two concepts of rules. Philosophical Review 64(1): 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rechenauer, M. 2003. Philosophical and technical welfarism. Some important distinctions (unpublished paper manuscript), LMU Munich.Google Scholar
  43. Ross, W.D. 1930/2002. The right and the good. ed. P. Stratton-Lake. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  44. Scheffler, S. 1982/1994. The rejection of consequentialism. Philosophical investigation of the considerations underlying rival moral conceptions. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  45. Schroth, J. 2009. Deontologie und die moralische Relevanz der Handlungskonse-quenz. Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 63(1): 55–75.Google Scholar
  46. Sidgwick, H. 1907. The methods of ethics. London: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Singer, P. 1972. Is act-utilitarianism self-defeating? Philosophical Review 81(1): 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 2009. How strong is this obligation? An argument for consequentialism from concomitant variation. Analysis 69(3): 438–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 2011. Consequentialism. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E. Zalta, Winter 2011.
  50. Sollars, G. 2002. The corporation as actual agreement. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(3): 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stocker, M. 1990. Plural and conflicting values. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sumner, L.W. 1969. Consequences of utilitarianism. Dialogue 7(4): 639–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sumner, L.W. 1987. The moral foundation of rights. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  54. Trapp, R.W. 1988. Nicht-klassischer Utilitarismus: eine Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann.Google Scholar
  55. Vallentyne, P. 1988. Teleology, consequentialism, and the past. The Journal of Value Inquiry 22: 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations