Pettit on consequentialism and universalizability.
Philip Pettit has argued that universalizability entails consequentialism. I criticise the argument for relying on a question-begging reading of the impartiality of universalization. A revised form of the argument can be constructed by relying on preference-satisfaction rationality, rather than on impartiality. But this revised argument succumbs to an ambiguity in the notion of a preference (or desire). I compare the revised argument to an earlier argument of Pettit's for consequentialism that appealed to the theoretical virtue of simplicity, and I raise questions about the force of appeal to notions like simplicity and rationality in moral argument.
Gleeson
Andrew
A
Discipline of Philosophy, School of Humanities, University of Adelaide, Australia. andrew.gleeson@adelaide.edu.au
D028663:Ethical Theory / Q000266:history; D049673:History, 20th Century; D049674:History, 21st Century; D006801:Humans