The Rejection of Consequentializing
Consequentialists say we may always promote the good. Deontologists object: not if that means killing one to save five. “Consequentializers” reply: this act is wrong, but it is not for the best, since killing is worse than letting die. I argue that this reply undercuts the “compellingness” of consequentialism, which comes from an outcome-based view of action that collapses the distinction between killing and letting die.
2019 ◽
Vol 44
(6)
◽
pp. 663-676
1983 ◽
Vol 64
(4)
◽
pp. 297-312
◽