Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T05:18:41.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wiggins and Ross

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2009

Jonathan Dancy
Jonathan Dancy
Affiliation:
University of Reading, j.p.dancy@reading.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ross's attempt to undermine the consequentialist understanding of the relation between duties and outcomes might give him greater defence against the danger that outcome-related duties will come to constitute a norm, to the disadvantage of all others.

Information

Type
10th Anniversary Symposium
Information
Utilitas , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , November 1998 , pp. 281 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 All otherwise unattributed page references are to this work.

2 See e.g. Hornsby, J., ‘On What's Intentionally Done’, in Action and Value in Criminal Law, ed. Shute, S. et al. , Oxford, 1993, p. 56Google Scholar.

3 This is my own definition of the extrinsic, not one that Ross would accept. He understands the intrinsic either as the non-instrumental or in terms of Moore's infamous isolation test.