Nonconsequentialism. Kamm, F. M. In The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, pages 261–286. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2013. Section: 12 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00014.x![Nonconsequentialism [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Nonconsequentialism is a normative ethical theory which denies that the rightness or wrongness of our conduct is determined solely by the goodness or badness of the consequences of our acts or the rules to which those acts conform. It does not deny that consequences can be a factor in determining the rightness of an act. It does insist that even when the consequences of two acts or act types are the same, one might be wrong and the other right. This theory denies both act- and rule-consequentialism, understood as holding that the right act or system of rules is the one that maximizes good consequences as determined by an impartial calculation of goods and bads. This calculation requires that we have a theory of what is good; it may be extremely liberal, holding that killings are bad or that autonomy is good, but we are still required to maximize the good.
@incollection{kamm_nonconsequentialism_2013,
title = {Nonconsequentialism},
copyright = {© 2013 Blackwell Publishers Ltd.},
isbn = {978-1-119-48848-4},
url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00014.x},
abstract = {Nonconsequentialism is a normative ethical theory which denies that the rightness or wrongness of our conduct is determined solely by the goodness or badness of the consequences of our acts or the rules to which those acts conform. It does not deny that consequences can be a factor in determining the rightness of an act. It does insist that even when the consequences of two acts or act types are the same, one might be wrong and the other right. This theory denies both act- and rule-consequentialism, understood as holding that the right act or system of rules is the one that maximizes good consequences as determined by an impartial calculation of goods and bads. This calculation requires that we have a theory of what is good; it may be extremely liberal, holding that killings are bad or that autonomy is good, but we are still required to maximize the good.},
language = {en},
urldate = {2020-11-11},
booktitle = {The {Blackwell} {Guide} to {Ethical} {Theory}},
publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons, Ltd},
author = {Kamm, F. M.},
collaborator = {{Hugh LaFollette} and {Ingmar Persson}},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00014.x},
note = {Section: 12
\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00014.x},
keywords = {aiding and aggregating, complications, constraints, contemporary nonconsequentialism outlined, inviolability, nonabsoluteness of constraints, nonconsequentialist principles, prerogatives},
pages = {261--286},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"yBuZKcQ48Tj2c93Am","bibbaseid":"kamm-nonconsequentialism-2013","author_short":["Kamm, F. M."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"incollection","type":"incollection","title":"Nonconsequentialism","copyright":"© 2013 Blackwell Publishers Ltd.","isbn":"978-1-119-48848-4","url":"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00014.x","abstract":"Nonconsequentialism is a normative ethical theory which denies that the rightness or wrongness of our conduct is determined solely by the goodness or badness of the consequences of our acts or the rules to which those acts conform. It does not deny that consequences can be a factor in determining the rightness of an act. It does insist that even when the consequences of two acts or act types are the same, one might be wrong and the other right. This theory denies both act- and rule-consequentialism, understood as holding that the right act or system of rules is the one that maximizes good consequences as determined by an impartial calculation of goods and bads. This calculation requires that we have a theory of what is good; it may be extremely liberal, holding that killings are bad or that autonomy is good, but we are still required to maximize the good.","language":"en","urldate":"2020-11-11","booktitle":"The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory","publisher":"John Wiley & Sons, Ltd","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kamm"],"firstnames":["F.","M."],"suffixes":[]}],"collaborator":"Hugh LaFollette and Ingmar Persson","year":"2013","doi":"10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00014.x","note":"Section: 12 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00014.x","keywords":"aiding and aggregating, complications, constraints, contemporary nonconsequentialism outlined, inviolability, nonabsoluteness of constraints, nonconsequentialist principles, prerogatives","pages":"261–286","bibtex":"@incollection{kamm_nonconsequentialism_2013,\n\ttitle = {Nonconsequentialism},\n\tcopyright = {© 2013 Blackwell Publishers Ltd.},\n\tisbn = {978-1-119-48848-4},\n\turl = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00014.x},\n\tabstract = {Nonconsequentialism is a normative ethical theory which denies that the rightness or wrongness of our conduct is determined solely by the goodness or badness of the consequences of our acts or the rules to which those acts conform. It does not deny that consequences can be a factor in determining the rightness of an act. It does insist that even when the consequences of two acts or act types are the same, one might be wrong and the other right. This theory denies both act- and rule-consequentialism, understood as holding that the right act or system of rules is the one that maximizes good consequences as determined by an impartial calculation of goods and bads. This calculation requires that we have a theory of what is good; it may be extremely liberal, holding that killings are bad or that autonomy is good, but we are still required to maximize the good.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2020-11-11},\n\tbooktitle = {The {Blackwell} {Guide} to {Ethical} {Theory}},\n\tpublisher = {John Wiley \\& Sons, Ltd},\n\tauthor = {Kamm, F. M.},\n\tcollaborator = {{Hugh LaFollette} and {Ingmar Persson}},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00014.x},\n\tnote = {Section: 12\n\\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00014.x},\n\tkeywords = {aiding and aggregating, complications, constraints, contemporary nonconsequentialism outlined, inviolability, nonabsoluteness of constraints, nonconsequentialist principles, prerogatives},\n\tpages = {261--286},\n}\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n","author_short":["Kamm, F. M."],"key":"kamm_nonconsequentialism_2013","id":"kamm_nonconsequentialism_2013","bibbaseid":"kamm-nonconsequentialism-2013","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/b.9780631201199.1999.00014.x"},"keyword":["aiding and aggregating","complications","constraints","contemporary nonconsequentialism outlined","inviolability","nonabsoluteness of constraints","nonconsequentialist principles","prerogatives"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0,"html":""},"bibtype":"incollection","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/daniel.r","dataSources":["bMNYYYE8ALPmpK328"],"keywords":["aiding and aggregating","complications","constraints","contemporary nonconsequentialism outlined","inviolability","nonabsoluteness of constraints","nonconsequentialist principles","prerogatives"],"search_terms":["nonconsequentialism","kamm"],"title":"Nonconsequentialism","year":2013}