Common-Sense Morality and Consequentialism

Regular price €112.99
A01=Michael A. Slote
Author_Michael A. Slote
Category=QDTQ
Common Sense Moral
Common Sense Morality
common-sense morality theories
comparative study of ethical theories
consequentialism
Consequentialist Moral
Consequentialist Moral Theory
Consequentialist Terms
deontological ethics
Deontological Restrictions
eq_isMigrated=1
eq_isMigrated=2
eq_nobargain
ethical consequentialism theories
ethical theory analysis
Fairy Tale
Human Suffering
Impersonal Standpoint
Innocent Projects
Michael Stocker
moral autonomy
moral autonomy debate
Moral Examples
Moral Luck
Moral Permission
moral philosophy research
Moral Principles
Negative Utilitarianism
Newcomb's Problem
Newcomb’s Problem
normative ethical frameworks
Objective Moral Theory
Ordinary Moral Agents
Ordinary Moral Intuition
Ordinary Moral Thinking
Ordinary Morality
satisficing consequentialism
satisficing ethics
scalar consequentialism
Scalar Morality
Self-other Asymmetry
utilitarianism
Vice Versa

Product details

  • ISBN 9780367502560
  • Weight: 453g
  • Dimensions: 156 x 234mm
  • Publication Date: 31 Jul 2020
  • Publisher: Taylor & Francis Ltd
  • Publication City/Country: GB
  • Product Form: Hardback
Delivery/Collection within 10-20 working days

Our Delivery Time Frames Explained
2-4 Working Days: Available in-stock

10-20 Working Days: On Backorder

Will Deliver When Available: On Pre-Order or Reprinting

We ship your order once all items have arrived at our warehouse and are processed. Need those 2-4 day shipping items sooner? Just place a separate order for them!

Originally published in 1985 and now re-issued with a new preface, this study assesses the two major moral theories of ethical consequentialism and common-sense morality by means of mutual comparison and an attempt to elicit the implications and tendencies of each theory individually. The author shows that criticisms and defences of common-sense morality and of consequentialism give inadequate characterizations of the dispute between them and thus at best provide incomplete rationales for either of these influential moral views. Both theories face inherent difficulties, some familiar but others mentioned for the first time in this work. The argument proceeds by reference to historical figures like Bentham, Ross and Sidgwick and to contemporary thinkers such as Williams, Nagel, Hare and Sen.

Michael A. Slote is UST Professor of Ethics at the University of Miami.