Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Rejection of ConsequentialismA Philosophical Investigation of the Considerations Underlying Rival Moral Conceptions$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Samuel Scheffler

Print publication date: 1994

Print ISBN-13: 9780198235118

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003

DOI: 10.1093/0198235119.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 18 December 2018

(p.167) Prerogatives Without Restrictions

(p.167) Prerogatives Without Restrictions

The Rejection of Consequentialism

Samuel Scheffler

Oxford University Press

Shelly Kagan and others have criticized the hybrid theory on the grounds that an agent‐centred prerogative, if unaccompanied by agent‐centred restrictions, might allow agents to harm others in pursuit of their personal projects. Scheffler considers in detail an example of Kagan's that illustrates this criticism and purports to show a conflict between the hybrid theory and common‐sense morality. Scheffler responds that the rationale supporting an agent‐centred prerogative can support either a pure‐cost version of the prerogative or a no‐harm version, and that the latter version avoids Kagan's criticism.

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .