Comments on: Kamm’s Intricate Ethics: Chapter 15 http://ethics-etc.com/2007/10/14/kamm%e2%80%99s-intricate-ethics-chapter-15/ A forum for discussing contemporary philosophical issues in ethics and related areas Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:52:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: S. Matthew Liao http://ethics-etc.com/2007/10/14/kamm%e2%80%99s-intricate-ethics-chapter-15/comment-page-1/#comment-619 S. Matthew Liao Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:06:08 +0000 http://ethics-etc.com/2007/10/14/kamm%e2%80%99s-intricate-ethics-chapter-15/#comment-619 Mark, thanks a lot for your helpful summary and comments. On your question about whether Gert is a rule-consequentialist or a nonconsequentialist, I suppose that Kamm’s analysis shows at least that (Kamm’s) Gert is not a maximizing kind of consequentialist. If he were, and if the loss to you of obeying the moral rule not to harm someone is even greater than the lost you would cause her, Gert would not insist that you may be required to suffer the loss, which he does (according to Kamm). Mark, thanks a lot for your helpful summary and comments.

On your question about whether Gert is a rule-consequentialist or a nonconsequentialist, I suppose that Kamm’s analysis shows at least that (Kamm’s) Gert is not a maximizing kind of consequentialist. If he were, and if the loss to you of obeying the moral rule not to harm someone is even greater than the lost you would cause her, Gert would not insist that you may be required to suffer the loss, which he does (according to Kamm).

]]>