Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Deontology
  • Cited by 6
      • Show more authors
      • You may already have access via personal or institutional login
    • Select format
    • Publisher:
      Cambridge University Press
      Publication date:
      14 January 2023
      02 February 2023
      ISBN:
      9781108581196
      9781108706520
      DOI:
      https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108581196
      Dimensions:
      Weight & Pages:
      Dimensions:
      (229 x 152 mm)
      Weight & Pages:
      0.15kg, 75 Pages
      • Series:
      Elements in Ethics
      Subjects:
      Philosophy: General Interest, Ethics, Philosophy
    You may already have access via personal or institutional login
    • Selected: Digital
    Add to cart View cart Buy from Cambridge.org
    Series:
    Elements in Ethics
    Subjects:
    Philosophy: General Interest, Ethics, Philosophy
    Information

    Book description

    Deontology is a theory about how we should act, morally speaking. It comes in several varieties, but all share certain doctrines, many of which are close to those found in the so-called 'common-sense morality' of the Western world. And all varieties are united in their opposition to consequentialism, a theory that, in its simplest form, tells us that we should always act so as to maximize impersonal value by bringing about the best consequences. This Element presents some of the different versions of deontology, including the views of W. D. Ross, and, to a lesser extent, Immanuel Kant. It defends certain deontological tenets, while challenging others, and contrasts them with consequentialism. Deontology and consequentialism are two of the main contenders in ethical theory, but virtue ethics is another, and it too is addressed (briefly), with an attempt to see it, in its most plausible form, as part of deontology.

    References

    References

    Alexander, L. and Moore, M. (2016) ‘Deontological Ethics’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-deontological/.
    Aquinas, T. (1988) (13th c). ‘Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 64, art. 7, “Of Killing”’. In Baumgarth, W. P. and Regan, R. J. (eds.) On Law, Morality, and Politics, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 226–7.
    Audi, R. (1996) ‘Intuitionism, Pluralism, and the Foundations of Ethics’. In Sinnott-Armstrong, W. and Timmons, M. (eds.) Moral Knowledge: New Readings in Moral Epistemology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101–36.
    Audi, R. (2004) The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Broad, C. D. (1930) Five Types of Ethical Theory, New York: Harcourt, Brace.
    Copp, D. (ed.) (2006) Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Dancy, J. (1998) ‘Wiggins and Ross’. Utilitas, 10: 281–5.
    Dancy, J. (2004) Ethics without Principles, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Dancy, J. (2017) ‘Moral Particularism’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/moral-particularism/.
    Daniels, N. (2020) ‘Reflective Equilibrium’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/reflective-equilibrium/.
    Darwall, S. (1998) ‘Under Moore’s Spell’. Utilitas, 10: 286–91.
    Darwall, S. (2006) ‘Morality and Practical Reason: A Kantian Approach’ in Copp 2006, 282–320.
    Dreier, J. (2011) ‘In Defense of Consequentializing’. In Timmons, M. (ed.) Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Volume 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–119.
    Ebels-Duggan, K. (2011) ‘Kantian Ethics’. In Miller, C. (ed.) The Continuum Companion to Ethics, London: Bloomsbury, 168–89.
    FitzPatrick, W. J. (2012) ‘The Doctrine of Double Effect: Intention and Permissibility’. Philosophy Compass, 7(3): 183–96.
    Fohr, S. A. (1998) ‘The Double Effect of Pain Medication: Separating Myth from Reality’. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 1: 315–28.
    Foot, P. (1967) ‘The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect’. Oxford Review No. 5 (reprinted in Virtues and Vices and Other Essays, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978).
    Geach, P. T. (1956) ‘Good and Evil’. Analysis, 17: 32–42.
    Hare, R. (1963) Freedom and Reason, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Hooker, B. (2000) Ideal Code, Real World, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Hursthouse, R. (1999) On Virtue Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Hursthouse, R. and Pettigrove, G. (2018) ‘Virtue Ethics’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/ethics-virtue/.
    Jackson, M. and Smith, M. (2006) ‘Absolutist Moral Theories and Uncertainty’. The Journal of Philosophy, 103(6): 267–83.
    Jamieson, D. (ed.) (1999) Singer and His Critics, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
    Johnson, R. and Cureton, A. (2021) ‘Kant’s Moral Philosophy’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/kant-moral/.
    Kagan, S. (1984) ‘Does Consequentialism Demand Too Much?’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 13: 239–54.
    Kagan, S. (1989) The Limits of Morality, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Kant, I. (1993) [1785] Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 3rd ed., translated by J. W. Ellington, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
    Kant, I. (2015) [1788] Critique of Practical Reason, rev. ed., translated by M. Gregor, translation revised by Reath, A., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Katz, L. (1996) Ill-Gotten Gains: Evasion, Blackmail, Fraud and Kindred Puzzles of the Law, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    Kavka, G. S. (1983) ‘The Toxin Puzzle’. Analysis, 43(1): 33–6.
    Mackie, J. (1977) Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
    McIntyre, A. (2019) ‘Doctrine of Double Effect’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/double-effect/.
    McNaughton, D. and Rawling, P. (1991) ‘Agent-Relativity and the Doing–Happening Distinction’. Philosophical Studies, 63: 167–85.
    McNaughton, D. and Rawling, P. (2006) ‘Deontology’. In Copp 2006, 424–58.
    McNaughton, D. and Rawling, P. (2013) ‘Intuitionism’. In LaFollette, H. and Persson, I. (eds.) The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, 2nd ed., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 287–310.
    Moore, G. E. (1966) [1903] Principia Ethica, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Moore, G. E. (1912) Ethics, London: Williams & Norgate.
    Moran, K. A. (2022) Kant’s Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    Nagel, T. (1970) The Possibility of Altruism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Nagel, T. (1986) The View from Nowhere, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Nelkin, D. K. and Rickless, S. C. (2014) ‘Three Cheers for Double Effect’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89(1): 125–58.
    Parfit, D. (1984) Reason and Persons, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Parfit, D. (2011) On What Matters, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Pettit, P. (1987) ‘Universalizability without Utilitarianism’. Mind, 96: 74–82.
    Phillips, D. (2019) Rossian Ethics: W.D. Ross and Contemporary Moral Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Portmore, D. (2011) Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Portmore, D. (ed.) (2020) The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Quinn, W. S. (1989a) ‘Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18: 334–51.
    Quinn, W. S. (1989b) ‘Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing’. Philosophical Review, 98(3): 287–312.
    Rachels, J. (1975) ‘Active and Passive Euthanasia’. New England Journal of Medicine, 292: 78–86.
    Ridge, M. and McKeever, S. (2020) ‘Moral Particularism and Moral Generalism’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/moral-particularism-generalism/.
    Rohlf, M. (2020) ‘Immanuel Kant’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/kant/.
    Ross, W. D. (1930) The Right and the Good, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
    Ross, W. D. (1939) The Foundations of Ethics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Scanlon, T. M. (1998) What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Scanlon, T. M. (2008) Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
    Scheffler, S. (ed.) (1988) Consequentialism and Its Critics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Scheffler, S. (1994) The Rejection of Consequentialism, rev. ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Singer, P. (1972) ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(3): 229–43.
    Snow, N. E. (2020) Contemporary Virtue Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Suikkanen, J. (2020) Contractualism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Sykes, N. and Thorns, A. (2003) ‘The Use of Opioids and Sedatives at the End of Life’. The Lancet Oncology, 1: 312–18.
    Taurek, J. M. (1977) ‘Should the Numbers Count?’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(4): 293–316.
    Thomson, J. J. (1985) ‘The Trolley Problem’. The Yale Law Journal, 94(6): 1395–415.
    Thomson, J. J. (2008) ‘Turning the Trolley’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 36(4): 359–74.
    Wiggins, D. (1998) ‘The Right and the Good and W. D. Ross’s Criticism of Consequentialism’. Utilitas, 10: 261–80.
    Woollard, F. (2012a) ‘The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing I: Analysis of the Doing/Allowing Distinction’. Philosophy Compass, 7(7): 448–58.
    Woollard, F. (2012b) ‘The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing II: The Moral Relevance of the Doing/Allowing Distinction’. Philosophy Compass, 7(7) 459–69.
    Woollard, F. and Howard-Snyder, F. (2021) ‘Doing vs. Allowing Harm’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/doing-allowing/.

    Metrics

    Altmetric attention score

    Full text views

    Total number of HTML views: 0
    Total number of PDF views: 0 *
    Loading metrics...

    Book summary page views

    Total views: 0 *
    Loading metrics...

    * Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

    Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

    Accessibility standard: Unknown

    Why this information is here

    This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

    Accessibility Information

    Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.