A Way Out of Pettit's Dilemma
Philip Pettit has argued, in ‘Non-consequentialism and Universalizability’, PQ, 50 (2000), pp. 175–90, that there is a tension between non-consequentialism and universalizability. In response I argue that Pettit's argument begs the question against the non-consequentialist, because it falsely assumes that the non-consequentialist must follow the consequentialist in neglecting the crucial distinction between promoting goods and respecting them.
No Supplementary Data
Document Type: Research Article
Affiliations: University of Dundee
Publication date: 2001-01-01