Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-lqqdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-07T06:23:43.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Against Consequentialist Interpretations of Deontological Principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2025

Amir Saemi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The distinction between doing and allowing (DDA); intentional and non-intentional agency (DDE); and agent-relative versus agent-neutral values have been invoked to support the deontological nature of moral thought. Consequentialists claim that, since these distinctions can be incorporated into value theory, all plausible deontological theories ultimately reduce to consequentialism. I argue: first, that while the DDA and DDE can be framed in agent-neutral terms, they must be interpreted in agent-relative terms; second, that even when interpreted in agent-relative terms, the DDA and DDE compel non-consequentialist understandings; and third, that these three distinctions function as non-consequentialist constraints on deliberation about action, thus resisting attempts to ‘consequentialize’ them. The conclusion is that, far from being a mere variant of consequentialism, deontology is a distinct moral theory—one that offers a principled rejection of the consequentialist ‘compelling idea’ that it is always permissible to bring about the outcome with the best possible consequences.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy , Volume 100 , Issue 2 , April 2025 , pp. 179 - 202
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Institute of Philosophy

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bazargan-Forward, Saba, ‘Moral coercion’, Philosophers’ Imprint, 14.11 (2014), 1-18.Google Scholar
Côté, Nicolas, ‘A Diachronic Consistency Argument for Minimizing One’s Own Rights Violations’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 24.5 (2021):1109-1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwall, Stephen, ‘Agent-centered restrictions from the inside out’, Philosophical Studies, 50.3 (1986), 291-319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreier, James, ‘Structures of Normative Theories’, The Monist 76 (1993): 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreier, James, ‘In Defense of Consequentializing.’ In Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, vol. 1, edited by Timmons, Mark, 97–119. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Richard, ‘Reasonable Religious Disagreements,’ in Philosophers Without God: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life, (Oxford University Press, 2007), p.208.Google Scholar
FitzPatrick, William, ‘The doctrine of double effect: Intention and permissibility.’ Philosophy Compass 7.3 (2012): 183-196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, Philippa, ‘The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect’, Oxford Review 5 (1967), 5–15.Google Scholar
Frowe, Helen, Defensive killing. (Oxford University Press, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, Barbara, ‘Impermissibility and Wrongness’, Norton Introduction to Philosophy, ed. Rosen, Gideon et al., (W. W. Norton & Company, 2014)Google Scholar
Herman, Barbara, Kantian Commitments: Essays on Moral Theory and Practice. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Christopher, ‘Consequentialists Must Kill’. Ethics 131.4 (2021), 727-753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert Howard, Nathan, ‘Consequentialism and the Agent’s Point of View’, Ethics, 132.4 (2022), 787-816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, Paul, ‘Why Consequentialism’s “Compelling Idea” Is Not’. Social Theory and Practice 43.1 (2017), 29-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, Paul, ‘The Consequentializing Argument Against… Consequentializing?’ Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics 12 (2022), 253-275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, Shelly, The Limits of Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
Immanuel Kant, I. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals, (Oxford University Press, 1785/2019).Google Scholar
Myrna Kamm, Francis, Morality, Mortality. Vol.2: A, Rights, Duties, and Status, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M, The Constitution of Agency: Essays on Practical Reason And Moral Psychology. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louise, Jennie ‘Relativity of Value and the Consequentialist Umbrella’, Philosophical Quarterly 54 (2004): 518–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, Eric, ‘Deontic Restrictions are Not Agent-Relative Restrictions.’ Social Philosophy and Policy. 15 (1998), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, Daniel, ‘The Rejection of Consequentializing’, Journal of Philosophy 118.2 (2021), 79-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Ingmar, From Morality to the End of Reason: An Essay on Rights, Reasons, and Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, Douglas W, ‘Consequentializing Moral Theories’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (2007), 39–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, Douglas W, Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, Douglas W, ‘Consequentializing’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward, N. Zalta & Nodelman, Uri (eds.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/consequentializing/Google Scholar
Portmore, Douglas W, ‘Consequentializing agent‐centered restrictions: A Kantsequentialist approach’, Analytic Philosophy, 64.4 (2023), 443-467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Warren S, ‘Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing’ The Philosophical Review, 98.3 (1989a), 287-312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Warren, ‘Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 18.4 (1989b), 334-351Google Scholar
Ridge, Michael, ‘Agent-Neutral Consequentialism From the Inside-Out: Concern for Integrity Without Self-Indulgence’, Utilitas, 13.2 (2001), 236–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridge, Michael, ‘Consequentialist Kantianism’, Philosophical Perspectives, 23 (2009), 421-438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, Samuel, The Rejection of Consequentialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982).Google Scholar
Andrew Schroeder, S, ‘Consequentializing and Its Consequences’, Philosophical Studies, 174.6 (2017), 1475–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setiya, Kieran, ‘Must Consequentialists Kill?’ Journal of Philosophy 115.2 (2018), 92-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgeon, Nicholas L, ‘Anderson on Reason and Value’, Ethics 106 (1996), 509–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadros, Victor ‘Wrongful Intentions Without Closeness’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 43 (2015), 52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadros, Victor, ‘Permissibility in a World of Wrongdoing’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 44.2 (2016), 101-132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woollard, Fiona, ‘The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing I: Analysis of the Doing/Allowing Distinction’, Philosophy Compass, 7.7 (2012a), 448-458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woollard, Fiona, ‘The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing II: The Moral Relevance of the Doing/Allowing Distinction’, Philosophy Compass, 7.7 (2012b), 459-469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar