The Rejection of Consequentializing

Journal of Philosophy 118 (2):79-96 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Consequentialists say we may always promote the good. Deontologists object: not if that means killing one to save five. “Consequentializers” reply: this act is wrong, but it is not for the best, since killing is worse than letting die. I argue that this reply undercuts the “compellingness” of consequentialism, which comes from an outcome-based view of action that collapses the distinction between killing and letting die.

Author's Profile

Daniel Muñoz
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-05-03

Downloads
2,048 (#4,284)

6 months
263 (#8,841)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?