Abstract
There is a widespread view according to which deontology can be construed as a flexible, reasonable view, able to incorporate consequentialist considerations when it seems compelling to do so. According to this view, deontologists can be moderate, and their presentation as die-hard fanatics, even if true to some historical figures, is basically a slanderous and misleading philosophical straw man. I argue that deontologists, properly understood, are not moderate. In the way deontology is typically understood, a deontology, as such, conceptually needs to be overriding. The error I point out has pernicious implications, which are noted.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 71-75 |
Number of pages | 5 |
Journal | Utilitas |
Volume | 15 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Mar 2003 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy
- Sociology and Political Science