Consequentializing agent-centered restrictions: A Kantsequentialist approach

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Analytic Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-04-12 DOI:10.1111/phib.12270
Douglas W. Portmore
{"title":"Consequentializing agent-centered restrictions: A Kantsequentialist approach","authors":"Douglas W. Portmore","doi":"10.1111/phib.12270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is, on a given moral view, an agent-centered restriction against performing acts of a certain type if that view prohibits agents from performing an instance of that act-type even to prevent two or more others from each performing a morally comparable instance of that act-type. The fact that commonsense morality includes agent-centered restrictions is often seen as a decisive objection to act-consequentialism. Despite this, I’ll argue that agent-centered restrictions are more plausibly accommodated within an act-consequentialist framework than within the more standard side-constraint framework. For I’ll argue that when we combine agent-relative act-consequentialism with a Kantian theory of value, we arrive at a version of consequentialism—namely, <i>Kantsequentialism</i>—that has several advantages over the side-constraint approach. What's more, I’ll show that this version of consequentialism avoids the disadvantages that critics of consequentializing have presumed that such a theory must have.</p>","PeriodicalId":45646,"journal":{"name":"Analytic Philosophy","volume":"64 4","pages":"443-467"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytic Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phib.12270","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

There is, on a given moral view, an agent-centered restriction against performing acts of a certain type if that view prohibits agents from performing an instance of that act-type even to prevent two or more others from each performing a morally comparable instance of that act-type. The fact that commonsense morality includes agent-centered restrictions is often seen as a decisive objection to act-consequentialism. Despite this, I’ll argue that agent-centered restrictions are more plausibly accommodated within an act-consequentialist framework than within the more standard side-constraint framework. For I’ll argue that when we combine agent-relative act-consequentialism with a Kantian theory of value, we arrive at a version of consequentialism—namely, Kantsequentialism—that has several advantages over the side-constraint approach. What's more, I’ll show that this version of consequentialism avoids the disadvantages that critics of consequentializing have presumed that such a theory must have.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结果化以主体为中心的限制:一种康德顺序主义方法
在一个给定的道德观点中,存在一个以行为主体为中心的对行为的限制如果该观点禁止行为主体执行该行为类型的一个实例甚至阻止两个或更多的其他人各自执行道德上可比的该行为类型的实例。常识性道德包括以主体为中心的限制,这一事实通常被视为对行为结果主义的决定性反对。尽管如此,我认为以主体为中心的限制更适合于行为结果主义框架,而不是更标准的侧约束框架。因为我要论证的是,当我们将主体相对行为结果主义与康德的价值理论结合起来时,我们就得到了一种结果主义——即康德顺序主义——它比侧约束方法有几个优势。更重要的是,我将证明这个版本的结果主义避免了结果化理论的批评者认为这种理论必然存在的缺点。!. 以主体为中心的限制和容纳它们的两种可选方法在一个给定的道德观点中,存在一种以主体为中心的限制(以下简称“限制”),它反对执行某种类型的行为,如果该观点禁止行为人执行该行为类型的实例,甚至阻止两个或更多的其他人各自执行该行为类型的道德可比实例因此,就常识性道德而言,存在一种限制1正如舍弗勒所说,“一个以主体为中心的限制,粗略地说,是这样一种限制,在某些情况下,至少有时是不允许违反的,在这种情况下,违反这种限制将有助于减少对同一限制的总体违反,并且不会产生其他与道德相关的后果”(LMNO, PQM)。那么,请注意,限制并不是简单地禁止执行某种类型的行为,甚至是为了防止两个或更多的其他人各自执行该行为类型的实例。毕竟,古典功利主义会禁止你无法实现效用最大化即使是为了防止其他人都无法实现效用最大化。但是,在这种情况下,你的行为在道德上无法与其他两个人相比。因为只有当你的行为导致的效用净损失大于其他两种行为造成的净损失之和时,你的行为才无法实现效用最大化。所以,尽管有些人声称(如Ridge, WQQM, PWW),古典功利主义并不意味着存在对效用最大化失败或任何其他类型行为的限制,因为它不禁止行为人执行一种行为类型,甚至不禁止另外两个人执行道德上可比较的行为类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Analytic Philosophy
Analytic Philosophy PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Categorial versus naturalized epistemology Naked statistical evidence and verdictive justice Issue Information Bringing the deep self back to the racecourse: Rethinking accountability and the deep self
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1