Shared more. Cited more. Safe forever.
    • advanced search
    • submit works
    • about
    • help
    • contact us
    • login
    View Item 
    •   MOspace Home
    • University of Missouri-Columbia
    • College of Arts and Sciences (MU)
    • Department of Philosophy (MU)
    • Philosophy publications (MU)
    • View Item
    •   MOspace Home
    • University of Missouri-Columbia
    • College of Arts and Sciences (MU)
    • Department of Philosophy (MU)
    • Philosophy publications (MU)
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    advanced searchsubmit worksabouthelpcontact us

    Browse

    All of MOspaceCommunities & CollectionsDate IssuedAuthor/ContributorTitleIdentifierThesis DepartmentThesis AdvisorThesis SemesterThis CollectionDate IssuedAuthor/ContributorTitleIdentifierThesis DepartmentThesis AdvisorThesis Semester

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular AuthorsStatistics by Referrer

    Against Maximizing Act-Consequentialism

    Vallentyne, Peter
    View/Open
    [PDF] Book Chapter (130.5Kb)
    Date
    2006
    Format
    Book chapter
    Metadata
    [+] Show full item record
    Abstract
    Maximizing act consequentialism holds that actions are morally permissible if and only if they maximize the value of consequences—if and only if, that is, no alternative action in the given choice situation has more valuable consequences. It is subject to two main objections. One is that it fails to recognize that morality imposes certain constraints on how we may promote value. Maximizing act consequentialism fails to recognize, I shall argue, that the ends do not always justify the means. Actions with maximally valuable consequences are not always permissible. The second main objection to maximizing act consequentialism is that it mistakenly holds that morality requires us to maximize value. Morality, I shall argue, only requires that we satisfice (promote sufficiently) value, and thus leaves us a greater range of options than maximizing act consequentialism recognizes. The issues discussed are, of course, highly complex, and space limitations prevent me from addressing them fully. Thus, the argument presented should be understood merely as the outline of an argument.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10355/10174
    Part of
    Philosophy publications
    Citation
    Contemporary debates in moral theory. ed. James Dreier. Malden: Blackwell, 2006. pp. 21-37.
    Collections
    • Philosophy publications (MU)

    Send Feedback
    hosted by University of Missouri Library Systems
     

     


    Send Feedback
    hosted by University of Missouri Library Systems