C-018Rossian Pluralism vs. ConsequentialismConfidence: Medium

The Limits of Morality, Ch 1-2

Kagan (1989)

One-Sentence Thesis

Kagan argues that ordinary morality is flawed and that a more extreme form of consequentialism, which requires individuals to promote the overall good, is a more defensible moral theory.

Argument Outline

1Kagan introduces the concept of ordinary morality and its limitations
2He critiques ordinary morality for its inability to provide a clear moral framework
3Kagan defends consequentialism as a more coherent and defensible moral theory
4He argues that consequentialism requires individuals to promote the overall good, even if it means making significant personal sacrifices
5Kagan responds to potential criticisms of consequentialism, including the objection that it is too demanding
6He discusses the concept of constraints and how they relate to moral decision-making
7Kagan argues that the moderate position, which seeks to balance individual interests with moral obligations, is ultimately flawed

Key Distinctions

The distinction between consequentialism and ordinary morality

The distinction between the extremist and moderate positions on moral obligations

The distinction between constraints and options in moral decision-making

The distinction between promoting the overall good and pursuing individual interests

The distinction between moral methodology and moral theory

Key Terms

Consequentialism

Ordinary morality

Extremist position

Moderate position

Constraints

Options

Moral methodology

Flashcards

26 cards