Sorry, no definitions found. Check out and contribute to the discussion of this word!
Sorry, no etymologies found.
So what looks like an intriguing result about deontic or consequentalist “intuitions” broadly speaking may only reflect a structural difference in the application of the different principles yielded by those intuitions.
One of the main reasons I am a consequentalist (rather than believing in natural rights) is that I suspect that intuitive morality is an evolved module meant for my genes’ good, rather than a window onto absolute truth.
You can probably see where I’m going here: The structure of consequentalist thought means that it’s always going to require a kind of calculation, however quick and easy, in weighing costs and benefits in each particular case.
“The structure of consequentalist thought means that it’s always going to require a kind of calculation, however quick and easy, in weighing costs and benefits in each particular case.”
Well, political philosopher Bill Galston (late of the University of Maryland, now at Brookings) was there, and pressed the pont a bit, saying (I’m paraphrasing here): Well, you said you didn’t want to apply these sort of consequentalist balancing tests, in effect defending a side-constraint sort of view, but here you are doing just that sort of balancing, so that’s also a component of your view.