Venkatesh, Nikhil;
(2021)
Is act-consequentialism self-effacing?
Analysis
, 81
(4)
pp. 718-726.
10.1093/analys/anab042.
Preview |
Text
anab042.pdf - Published Version Download (165kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Act-consequentialism (C) is self-effacing for an agent iff that agent’s not accepting C would produce the best outcome. The question of whether C is self-effacing is important for evaluating C. Some hold that if C is self-effacing that would be a mark against it (Williams 1973: 134); however, the claim that C is self-effacing is also used to defend C against certain objections (Parfit 1984: Ch. 1, Railton 1984). In this paper I will show that one argument suggested by Parfit and Railton fails to establish that C is self-effacing for individuals. However, a slightly different argument may show that C is self-effacing for groups. This raises the intriguing possibility that it might be right for an individual, but not for a group of which they are a member, to accept a moral theory. This possibility, odd though it seems, might be helpful to consequentialists.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Is act-consequentialism self-effacing? |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1093/analys/anab042 |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anab042 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of Arts and Humanities UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of Arts and Humanities > Dept of Philosophy |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10166073 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
