Abstract

Consequentialists agree that deontic notions such as obligation, permission, and prohibition should be understood in terms of evaluative notions about the good. For instance, duty or obligation should be understood as serving or promoting the good in some way. In a familiar slogan, consequentialists believe that the good is prior to the right (Rawls, 1971). Utilitarians are consequentialists who conceive of the good in terms of happiness or well-being. Within the constraints set by consequentialist and utilitarian essentials, there are important family disputes. Consequentialists, in general, and utilitarians, in particular, disagree over the justification of consequentialist and utilitarian essentials, the proper conception of the good, in general, and happiness or well-being, in particular, and the exact relation between the good and the right.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.