believe that an act's deontic status depends on just one aspect of the act, such as the sum total of wellbeing it produces, or the sum total of priority- or equality-adjusted wellbeing.
Moreover, for consequentialists
living in relatively affluent circumstances, this will apparently be a routine occurrence.
John Paul thus challenges not only the consequentialists
but also the "basic goods" theorists [112-15].
3, 7-8 (1955) (citing consequentialists
such as Hobbes and Jeremy Bentham for the proposition that "[p]unishment is only punishment when it is deserved") (internal citations omitted).
hold, that is, that the justice of social rules is determined exclusively by the quality of the overall distribution (of goods and ills, or quality of life) produced by these rules.
21) Accordingly, when they discuss CP with consequentialists
, they make consequentialist
tend to avoid backward looking, desert based notions like merit, blame, and so forth, and to embrace forward looking considerations like rehabilitation, deterrence, and the like.
In On What Matters, Derek Parfit argues that we need to make a significant reassessment of the relationship between some central positions in moral philosophy because, contrary to received opinion, Kantians, contractualists, and consequentialists
are all "climbing the same mountain on different sides.
should be prepared to accept a
maintain that the epistemically right (for example, the justified) is to be understood in terms of conduciveness to the epistemic good (for example, true belief).
In fact, I will contend that the account of the moral reactive attitudes that Strawson first presents in "Freedom and Resentment" may be a valuable resource for consequentialists
suggest here that "states harbor a greater concern about immediate consequences than those that are delayed or build slowly over time.