How Not to Oppugn Consequentialism

Abstract

Much of moral philosophy has involved debates between consequentialist and deontological approaches to the subject. On the former side are philosophers who evaluate each action by reference to the consequences or states of affairs which the action brings about;^l on the latter side are philosophers who evaluate each action by reference to its accordance or disaccordance with entitlements and obligations that obtain irrespective of the consequences that will flow from our heeding of them. In the course of these debates, each side has not only sought to commend the merits of its own broad position but has also sought to expose the shortcomings in the position of the other side. of ten, the attempts to discredit either position have proceeded via the construction of scenarios in which the assailed position leads to ghastly results. Roughly as of ten, the discrediting proceeds through revelations (or putative revelations) of analytical shortcomings.