back to ideas for this text


Single Idea 6853

[from 'Interview with Baggini and Stangroom' by Roger Crisp, in 22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 1. Goodness / g. Consequentialism ]

Full Idea

What is wrong with consequentialism is that it assumes that there is agreement about when an act ends and when its consequences begin.

Gist of Idea

Consequentialism wrongly assumes a clear line between an act and its consequences

Source

Roger Crisp (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.31)

Book Reference

Baggini,J/Stangroom,J: 'New British Philosophy' [Routledge 2002], p.31


A Reaction

I certainly agree that this is a mistake in consequentialism, which has a crude idea of what an action is, though I am not convinced that this is the key fault in the theory. The theory doesn't distinguish acts by people from those by machines.