Util vs. Deont lecture

Util vs. Deont lecture - Util vs. Deont. Authors of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Util vs. Deont. Authors of intended harm is worse b/c it fails to treat people as ends in themselves doctrine of double effect: Warren Quinn, Allision Hill Immanuel Kant: only thing that is good in of itself is the will. Value from perspective of will. Categorical imperative: if an action can be universalized, cant use a person to a means as an end: steven angstrom says that kantism is the form of practical reason Christine korsgaard: practical reason Kamm reduce . therere other statuses of persons that matter besides inviolability Otsuka Kamm on the morality of killing, Casper lipperrt-rasmussen moral status and the impressibility of dismissing violations Very difficult to justify inviolability is important Arthur applbaum our violations ever right. Status of mattering is inviolable (not a very good card) Nozick peoples rights have to be respected as a side constraints Answering Deontology Question act vs. omission- no distinction b/c act of free will as to which action you should take. There has Question act vs....
View Full Document

Page1 / 3

Util vs. Deont lecture - Util vs. Deont. Authors of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online