Skip to main content


Buy Article:

$43.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)


Julia Driver, Timm Triplett, and Kathleen Wallace challenge my account of moral arrogance, and Triplett and Wallace challenge its application to the problem of abortion. I try to show here that Driver's attempt to defend consequentialism from my charge that it promotes moral arrogance is successful only if consequentialism explicitly gives up what has been considered one of its major virtues. I acknowledge that Triplett has uncovered some unclarity in my claim that the moral acceptability of abortion is an unresolvable moral issue. I also acknowledge that Wallace has uncovered some unclarity in my account of moral arrogance. After clarifying that account, I try to meet her challenge to defend my claim that it is not morally arrogant for a state to place some restrictions on abortions.
No References
No Citations
No Supplementary Data
No Data/Media
No Metrics

Keywords: Driver; Gert; Triplett; Wallace; abortion; arrogance; consequentialism; embryo; epistemic humility; fetus; metaphysical belief; moral belief; rational; religious belief; unresolvable moral disagreement

Document Type: Research Article

Affiliations: Department of Philosophy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA, Email: [email protected]

Publication date: 2007-07-01

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more