Non-consequentialism in Philosophical Thought

Paper Summary:

Consequentialist ethical theories maintain that right and wrong depend only on the consequences; while non-consequential theories claim that right and wrong do not depend entirely on consequences. Following the generally admitted differentiation between the two theories, philosophers draw the conclusion that a successful defense of the non-consequentialist ethical theory elies greatly on the existence and proper justification of the "constraints" that appear in such cases. This paper begins by defining non-consequentialist constraints and follows through by justifying their necessary presence. In the second part of the essay, the paper compares some of the defenses we were described and draws relevant conclusions.

From the Paper:

"Kant's theory relies exactly on the existence of a set of mutually accepted and recognized moral norms, ethical criteria which help a person make the right decision at the right time. Kant's entire ethical theory relies on the existence of deontological constraints. These universal laws, as Kant sees them, allow us to function correctly in a society."

More papers on Non-consequentialism in Philosophical Thought:

• Essay # 64133 : "Consolation in Philosophical Thought"
• Essay # 143766 : "Non-Linearity In Digital Media: The Audience Member As Author"
• Research Paper # 830 : "Bayard Rustin and Non-Violence in the Civil Rights Movement"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: