more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Consequentialists, unlike deontologists, are unlikely to think that the act/omission distinction is fundamentally important.
Gist of Idea
The act/omission distinction is important for duties, but less so for consequences
Source
Hugh LaFollette (Introductions in 'Ethics in Practice' [2002], p.021)
Book Ref
'Ethics in Practice (2nd Ed)', ed/tr. LaFollette,Hugh [Blackwell 2002], p.21
A Reaction
Not sure where virtue theory fits in here. Virtues tend to be applied more locally, where duty tends to be global. All moral theories must acknowledge that failure to act may be either a good or a bad thing, depending on circumstances
| 20877 | Errors in moral practice might be inconsistent or inappropriate principles, or inappropriate application [LaFollette] |
| 20878 | We can discuss the criteria of a judgment, or the weight given to them, or their application [LaFollette] |
| 20879 | Too many options may open us to unwanted pressures, like being paid very little [LaFollette] |
| 20880 | Should people be forced to make choices? [LaFollette] |
| 20881 | The act/omission distinction is important for duties, but less so for consequences [LaFollette] |
| 20886 | Are we only obligated by agreement, or should we always help the weak? [LaFollette] |