Against Blameless Wrongdoing

Elinor Mason

Against Blameless Wrongdoing

Elinor Mason

School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

I argue against the standard view that it is possible to describe extensionally different consequentialist theories by describing different evaluative focal points. I argue that for consequentialist purposes, the important sense of the word ?act? must include all motives and side effects, and thus these things cannot be separated.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	287-303
Number of pages	17
Journal	Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
Volume	5
Publication status	Published - 2002

Access to Document

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1019671210369

Cite this

@article{9bdec303af89468ba0e5fcc2a84802d4,

title = "Against Blameless Wrongdoing",

abstract = "I argue against the standard view that it is possible to describe extensionally different consequentialist theories by describing different evaluative focal points. I argue that for consequentialist purposes, the important sense of the word ?act? must include all motives and side effects, and thus these things cannot be separated.",

author = "Elinor Mason",

note = "10.1023/A:1019671210369",

year = "2002",

language = "English",

volume = "5",

pages = "287--303",

journal = "Ethical Theory and Moral Practice",

issn = "1386-2820",

publisher = "Springer",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Against Blameless Wrongdoing

AU - Mason, Elinor

N1 - 10.1023/A:1019671210369

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - I argue against the standard view that it is possible to describe extensionally different consequentialist theories by describing different evaluative focal points. I argue that for consequentialist purposes, the important sense of the word ?act? must include all motives and side effects, and thus these things cannot be separated.

AB - I argue against the standard view that it is possible to describe extensionally different consequentialist theories by describing different evaluative focal points. I argue that for consequentialist purposes, the important sense of the word ?act? must include all motives and side effects, and thus these things cannot be separated.

M3 - Article

SN - 1386-2820

VL - 5

SP - 287

EP - 303

JO - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

JF - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

ER -

Against Blameless Wrongdoing

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this