Volume 3, Number 1
April 2009
DISCUSSION

Consequentialism, Constraints, and the Good-Relative-to: A Reply to Mark Schroeder

Volume 3, Number 1, April 2009, Pages 1–9
https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v3i1.124
PDFPDF

Abstract

Recently, it has been a part of the so-called consequentializing project to attempt to construct versions of consequentialism that can support agent-relative moral constraints. Mark Schroeder has argued that such views are bound to fail because they cannot make sense of the agent relative value on which they need to rely. In this paper, I provide a fitting-attitude account of both agent-relative and agent-neutral values that can together be used to consequentialize agent-relative constraints.
Copyright © 2009 Jussi Suikkanen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
|

Is Agent-Neutral Deontology Possible?

Matthew Hammerton

Saving People and Flipping Coins

Ben Bradley

The Ambitions of Consequentialism

Brian McElwee

The Value of Caring: A Reply to Maguire

Jörg Löschke

Rethinking Demandingness: Why Satisficing Consequentialism and Scalar Consequentialism Are Not Less Demanding Than Maximizing Consequentialism

Spencer Case

A Counterexample to Parfit’s Rule Consequentialism

Jacob Nebel

People Do Not Have a Duty to Avoid Voting Badly: Reply to Brennan

Marcus Arvan

Chance, Epistemic Probability and Saving Lives: Reply to Bradley

Michael J. Almeida

The Good, the Bad, and the Blameworthy

Neil Levy

When Enough Is Not Enough: Satisficing and Moral Efficiency

Konstantin Weber

Moral Demandingness and Modal Demandingness

Kyle York

Three Kinds of Prioritarianism

Carlos Soto

Portico