Rejecting The Publicity Condition: The Inevitability of Esoteric Morality

Eggleston, Ben

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2012.00106.x

Cited by 33 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fromtheperspectiveofethicaltheoryonthesubjectofsecrecy,therearetwooppositeframeworks toconsider:theutilitarianandthedeontological.Anextremeposition,expressedbySidgwick(1874), basically states that promoting rules for public acceptance does not eliminate the possibility of permissiblesecrecy.Amongthecontemporarythinkers, Eggleston(2013)goesevenfurther,claiming thatthepublicityconditionforpublicpolicyisexcessivelydemandingandquestion-begging. Kant(1795)representsanotherextremeclaimingthat"Allactionsrelatingtotherightofother humanbeingsarewrongiftheirmaximisincompatiblewithpublicity".Itisobviousthatsabotage requiresstealthanddeception.ShouldwetakeitforgrantedthatKantwouldobviouslyrejectit?…”

Section: Secrecymentioning

confidence: 99%

George the Chemist

Talanker

2021

International Journal of Technoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper is an attempt to answer Bernard Williams' classical dilemma of George the chemist, who is asked by a senior colleague to partake in a CBW research program. Both George and the colleague oppose the research, and George is advised not to publicize his attitude for George to get the job instead of someone more eager. On the one hand, George does not want to be involved in the research, yet on the other hand, he does not want to allow it to be completed faster. The author views George's potential actions as sabotage and argues that since the existing ethical codes demand putting safety ahead of the pressures of the employers, sabotage should not be out of the question. CBW endangers entire communities, and thus secretly sabotaging its research amounts to disaster prevention and should be considered a professional duty by consequentialists and deontologists alike, even if it may involve deception and furthermore deception about deception.

show abstract

Section: Secrecymentioning

confidence: 99%

George the Chemist

Talanker

2021

International Journal of Technoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They claim that utilitarianism is self-effacing: it requires us not to accept utilitarianism. This allows them to accept 3 whilst arguing that it is no mark against utilitarianism: whatever attitudes the agent who accepts utilitarianism has towards their projects are not required by utilitarianism as a theory (Eggleston, 2013;Lazari-Radek & Singer, 2010;Parfit, 1984, Chap. 1;Railton 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Against commitment

Venkatesh

2022

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his famous ‘Integrity Objection’, Bernard Williams condemns utilitarianism for requiring us to regard our projects as dispensable, and thus precluding us from being properly committed to them. In this paper, I argue against commitment as Williams defines it, drawing upon insights from the socialist tradition as well as mainstream analytic moral philosophy. I show that given the mutual interdependence of individuals (a phenomenon emphasised by socialists) several appealing non-utilitarian moral principles also require us to regard our projects as dispensable. This means that those who endorse those principles cannot appeal to Williams’s argument against utilitarianism. It also puts pressure on his thought that moral theories ought to permit commitment – in fact, it suggests that they ought not.Regarding one’s projects as dispensable may be alienating, and this may motivate us to hang onto commitment and reject these non-utilitarian principles along with utilitarianism. However, commitment also threatens a kind of alienation – from other people. Drawing upon the socialist tradition again, I argue that avoiding this form of alienation is necessary for proper engagement with our projects, and thereby with ourselves.

show abstract

“…It has been observed that there is a parallel "paradox of consequentialism," that is, that thinking in consequentialist terms can prevent agents from producing the best consequences. SeeWilliams (1973),Stocker (1976),Railton (1984),Wiland (2007), andEggleston (2013b). One response to this worry has been to argue that even if it would be a bad idea for agents to believe in or try to follow a consequentialist theory, this does not mean that the theory is incorrect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22Parfit (1984: Sect. 18) andEggleston (2013b).dietz Journal of Moral Philosophy 18 (2021) 387-411 Downloaded from Brill.com08/23/2021 03:06:30AM via free access…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Use the Paradox of Hedonism

Dietz

2021

J. Moral Philos.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paradox of hedonism is the idea that intrinsically desiring nothing other than pleasure can prevent one from obtaining pleasure. In this article, I show how the paradox of hedonism can be used as the basis for an objection against hedonism about well-being, and one that is more defensible than has been commonly recognized. Moreover, I argue that the challenge presented by the paradox can be used to target not only hedonism about well-being, but also desire satisfactionism and the hybrid theory. However, I argue that certain sophisticated versions of all three theories can escape it.

show abstract

Rejecting The Publicity Condition: The Inevitability of Esoteric Morality

Cited by 33 publications

References 1 publication

George the Chemist

George the Chemist

Against commitment

How to Use the Paradox of Hedonism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About