In contemporary philosophy, substantive moral theories are typically classified as either consequentialist or deontological. Standard consequentialist theories insist, roughly, that agents must always act so as to produce the best available outcomes overall. Standard deontological theories, by contrast, maintain that there are some circumstances where one is permitted but not required to produce the best overall results, and still other circumstances in which one
is positively forbidden to to do.
Classical utilitarianism is the most familiar consequentialist view, but it is widely regarded as an inadequate account of morality. Although Professor Scheffler agrees with this assessment, he also believes that consequentialism seems initially plausible, and that there is a persistent air of paradox surrounding typical deontological views. In this book, therefore, he undertakes to reconsider the rejection of consequentialism.
He argues that it is possible to provide a rationale for the view that agents need not always produce the best possible overall outcomes, and this motivates one departure from consequentialism; but he shows that it is surprisingly difficult to provide a satisfactory rationale for the view that there are times when agents must not produce the best possible overall outcomes. He goes on to argue for a hitherto neglected type of moral conception, according to which agents are always permitted, but
not always required, to produce the best outcomes.
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Number of pages: 206
Weight: 397 g
Dimensions: 222 x 143 x 17 mm
Edition: Revised edition
From the reviews of the first edition: "an intelligent, substantive, and challenging book ... Scheffler's ... discussion of the problems of consequentialism is superior to any I have read" Philosophical Review
In this book Samuel Scheffler discusses topics of great practical and theoretical interest ... Scheffler's challenge must be taken very seriously, and it is one of the merits of this valuable book that it asks a question that must surely be answered. * Philippa Foot, Times Literary Supplement *
one of the most interesting works of moral philosophy that I have read in years * Shelly Kagan, Philosophy and Public Affairs *