Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/36097
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Type: | Journal article |
Title: | Right motive, wrong action: Direct consequentialism and evaluative conflict |
Author: | Louise, J. |
Citation: | Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2006; 9(1):65-85 |
Publisher: | Springer Netherlands |
Issue Date: | 2006 |
ISSN: | 1386-2820 1572-8447 |
Statement of Responsibility: | Jennie Louise |
Abstract: | In this paper I look at attempts to develop forms of consequentialism which do not have a feature considered problematic in Direct Consequentialist theories (that is, those consequentialist theories that apply the criterion of rightness directly in the evaluation of any set of options). The problematic feature in question (which I refer to as ‘evaluative conflict’) is the possibility that, for example, a right motive might lead an agent to perform a wrong act. Theories aiming to avoid this phenomenon must argue that causal relationship entails motives and acts (for example) having the same moral status. I argue that attempts to ensure such ‘evaluative consistency’ are themselves deeply problematic, and that we must therefore accept evaluative conflict. |
Keywords: | direct consequentialism indirect consequentialism motives blameless wrongdoing moral evaluation |
Description: | The original publication can be found at www.springerlink.com |
DOI: | 10.1007/s10677-005-9000-8 |
Published version: | http://www.springerlink.com/content/g7173062734h8435/ |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest 6 Philosophy publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.