7 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
View submission: A Tentative Case for Consequentialism
I just cannot get on board with any discussion of the big three, especially when it comes to Petit, Parfit or Singer. I find it's just wheel-spinning
I'm a constructivist, so take from that what you will, but the big three are all after the same thing and wind up talking past each other. (Obviously, I think Constructivism bests them all at their own game.)
Like, you could very easily twist yourself up and get a deontological system that is "consequentialist" on this definition because the thing that brings about the best good is following this set of rul... And oops, I've invented Rule Utilitarianism.
Or you could similarly swap the language games of virtue ethics and deontology to describe the same practical system of being a particular kind of person that behaves in a particular kind of way.
I just find that the "nuances" of the big three - the places where they start to drift astray of their *moral core* is over commitment to the language used to talk about them.
There's nothing here!