Consequentialism and its Critics

Oxford Readings in Philosophy

by Samuel Scheffler (Editor)

Consequentialism, a moral doctrine that asserts that the right act in any given situation is the one that will produce the best overall outcome, as judged from an impersonal standpoint that gives equal weight to all interests, has been criticized on the grounds that it fails to capture the
most crucial features of moral thinking and cannot, when worked out in detail, provide an adequate account of morality. In this anthology, distinguished scholars--Thomas Nagel, T. M. Scanlon, John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Samuel Scheffler, Conrad D. Johnson, Bernard Williams, Peter Railton, Amartya
Sen, Philippa Foot, and Derek Parfit--debate arguments for and against consequentialism to present a complete view of this significant area in moral philosophy.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

300 pages, Hardcover

First published April 14, 1988

Reviews

[Sean Bragen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid overview of some of the better arguments against consequentialism. The last chapter in particular makes a strong, and almost Rawlsian argument, for a division of labor (moral legislator vs judge). This authority constrain on consequentialism creates an interesting two tiered system, where we are concerned with first-order and second-order moral principles. A pretty interesting and insightful take on consequentialism. By far the best chapter.