Yahoo Web Search

Search results

1. • • Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act).
     plato.stanford.edu › entries › consequentialism

     Consequentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

2. People also ask

   Are consequences morally relevant?

   • Later deontologists —for instance, W. D. Ross (1877–1971)—argue that consequences are morally relevant when considered in light of our moral duties. Ross believed that a moral theory that ignored duty or a moral theory that ignored consequences “over-simplifies the moral life” (Ross 1939, 189).

   9.3 Deontology - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax

   openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/9-3-deontology

   See all results for this question

   Is there a relationship between moral status and outcome?

   • It's just stating a meta-truth relationship between the moral status of an action and the outcome of said action. The only necessary precondition is for the to be a consequence. No consequence, then no moral status for the action which results in the outcome of no consequence.

   Is there a difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism?

   philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/57464/is-there-a-difference-between-utilitarianism-and-consequentialism

   See all results for this question

   Are You morally responsible for your behavior?

   • Making judgments about whether a person is morally responsible for her behavior, and holding others and ourselves responsible for actions and the consequences of actions, is a fundamental and familiar part of our moral practices and our interpersonal relationships.

   Moral Responsibility - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

   plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/

   See all results for this question

   Are We morally responsible for our actions?

   • Another important skeptical argument—related to the observations about constitutive moral luck in the previous subsection—is Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, which concludes that “we cannot be truly or ultimately morally responsible for our actions” (1994: 5).

   Moral Responsibility - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

   plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/

   See all results for this question

3. plato.stanford.edu › entries › consequentialismConsequentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

   plato.stanford.edu › entries › consequentialism

   May 20, 2003 · Since classic utilitarianism reduces all morally relevant factors (Kagan 1998, 17–22) to consequences, it might appear simple. However, classic utilitarianism is actually a complex combination of many distinct claims, including the following claims about the moral rightness of acts:

   • Author and Citation Info

     We would like to show you a description here but the site...

   • Rule Consequentialism

     The theory of morality we can call full...

4. philosophy.tamucc.edu › notes › are-consequences-allAre Consequences All that Matter? | Philosophy - Texas A&M ...

   philosophy.tamucc.edu › notes › are-consequences-all

   • Cached

   These arguments appear to undermine the Utilitarian's key assumption that the only morally relevant feature of an action is the utility of its consequences. What the arguments show is that other issues like justice, rights, and backward-looking reasons (prior agreements) sometimes trump utility.

5. plato.stanford.edu › entries › moral-responsibilityMoral Responsibility - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

   plato.stanford.edu › entries › moral-responsibility

   Oct 16, 2019 · Moral Responsibility. Making judgments about whether a person is morally responsible for her behavior, and holding others and ourselves responsible for actions and the consequences of actions, is a fundamental and familiar part of our moral practices and our interpersonal relationships.

6. human.libretexts.org › Bookshelves › Philosophy9.2: Consequentialism - Humanities LibreTexts

   human.libretexts.org › Bookshelves › Philosophy

   • Cached

   If an action produces consequences a person didn’t intend or foresee and so does harm, they are still morally at fault, even if at the time it seemed reasonable to assume those outcomes wouldn’t happen. For utilitarians, an agent’s intent and character are not morally relevant factors.

7. openstax.org › books › introduction-philosophy9.3 Deontology - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax

   openstax.org › books › introduction-philosophy

   • Cached

   Later deontologists —for instance, W. D. Ross (1877–1971)—argue that consequences are morally relevant when considered in light of our moral duties. Ross believed that a moral theory that ignored duty or a moral theory that ignored consequences “over-simplifies the moral life” (Ross 1939, 189). Kantian Formulation.

8. plato.stanford.edu › entries › ethics-deontologicalDeontological Ethics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

   plato.stanford.edu › entries › ethics-deontological

   Nov 21, 2007 · The most familiar forms of deontology, and also the forms presenting the greatest contrast to consequentialism, hold that some choices cannot be justified by their effects—that no matter how morally good their consequences, some choices are morally forbidden.

9. philosophy.stackexchange.com › questions › 57464ethics - Is there a difference between utilitarianism and ...

   philosophy.stackexchange.com › questions › 57464

   • Cached

   If only foreseen consequences are morally relevant, intended consequences have no separate moral significance. It is no moral justification to say, on the lines of the doctrine of double effect, that although I foresaw that administering pain-relieving medication to a patient would result in her early death, it is morally important that I ...