Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality (Oxford Moral Theory)
The chapter pays particularly close attention to the issue of whether all practical reasons that is, reasons for action are teleological. Keywords: value , teleology , promotion , epistemic reasons , practical reasons.
Douglas W. He is currently working on his second book: Opting for the Best: Oughts and Options.hurbiozimma.cf
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription. Please subscribe or login to access full text content.
- ISBN 13: 9780199396450?
- Four Witnesses to Testify Against Mankind--Two in Ancient Times and Two in the Tribulation?
- Commonsense Consequentialism | Βιβλία Public!
- Bestselling Series.
Citations per year
Publications Pages Publications Pages. Search within my subject: Select Politics Urban Studies U. History Law Linguistics Literature. Music Neuroscience Philosophy Physical Sciences. Teleological Reasons.
- Apocalypse in Australian Fiction and Film: A Critical Study (Critical Explorations in Science Fiction and Fantasy).
- HCG Diet Recipes and Cookbook: 50 HCG Diet Recipes + Our Free HCG Diet Summary - Get th Secret HCG Recipes that Everyone is Looking for....
- Three Duets, Opus 27: For Two Flutes: 0 (Kalmus Edition).
- Commonsense Consequentialism.
- Introduction to Optimum Design.
- Utilitas, Cambridge University Press | IDEAS/RePEc.
- Urban Underworlds: A Geography of Twentieth-Century American Literature and Culture (The American Literatures Initiative)!
In it, Douglas W. Portmore defends a version of consequentialism that both comports with our commonsense moral intuitions and shares with other consequentialist theories the same compelling teleological conception of practical reasons.
Douglas W. Portmore (Arizona State University) - PhilPeople
Broadly construed, consequentialism is the view that an act's deontic status is determined by how its outcome ranks relative to those of the available alternatives on some evaluative ranking. Portmore argues that outcomes should be ranked, not according to their impersonal value, but according to how much reason the relevant agent has to desire that each outcome obtains and that, when outcomes are ranked in this way, we arrive at a version of consequentialism that can better account for our commonsense moral intuitions than even many forms of deontology can.
What's more, Portmore argues that we should accept this version of consequentialism, because we should accept both that an agent can be morally required to do only what she has most reason to do and that what she has most reason to do is to perform the act that would produce the outcome that she has most reason to want to obtain.