Critique of consequentialist moral absolutism




Moral absolutism, consequentialism, deontologism, bias, rights, special obligations


In this work, I assess critically three arguments in favor of moral absolutism. Perhaps surprisingly, these arguments justify absolutism because of its consequences. The first argument point out from certain cognitive biases in orden to show that treating moral norms as absolute maximizes our conformity with these norms. The second argument holds that we must deal with a right as absolute when it is not possible to compensate the infraction of that right; otherwise, rights would lose all practical relevance. The third argument starts o with the intrinsic value of special relationships, like friendship, to show that special relationships will be undermined if we do not treat special obligations as absolute. The three arguments fail because they do not show that treating certain moral norms as absolute is neither necessary nor suffcient to accomplish the important consequences that the arguments identify.

= 657 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 384 veces| | VISOR (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 35 veces|


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Francisco García Gibson, Universidad de Buenos Aires

Doctor en Filosofía, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Docente en la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Instituto de Filosofía, Jefe de Trabajos Prácticos, de la misma universidad. Sus áreas de investigación: temas de pobreza extrema global, realismo político, teoría no ideal y manos sucias en política. Publicaciones recientes: Solving confliicts between domestic inequality and global poverty: Lexicality vs. proportionality, En: Ethics and Global Politics (9), 2016; Utopias and comparative assessments of justice, En: Metaphilosophy (47), 2016; Desigualdad global y coerción, En: Análisis Filosó co 36, 2015.


Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2016). Deontological ethics. En: Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016). Accesible en–deontological/. Accedido el 7/6/17

Donagan, A. (1977). The theory of morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Reviews of Reproductive Biology, 5, 5–15.

Gewirth, A. (1981). Are there any absolute rights? The Philosophical Quarterly, 31 (122), 1–16.

Gewirth, A. (1982). There are absolute rights. The Philosophical Quarterly, 32 (129), 348–353.

Hill, T. E. (1983). Moral purity and the lesser evil. The Monist, 66 (2), 213–232.

Hooker, B. (2016). Rule consequentialism. En E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016). Accesible en–rule/. Accedido el 7/6/17

Kant, I. (1996). On a supposed right to lie from philanthropy (1797). En M. J. Gregor, I. Kant, M. J. Gregor, & A. W. Wood (Eds.), Immanuel Kant: Practical philosophy, (pp. 605–616).

Korsgaard, C. M. (1986). The right to lie: Kant on dealing with evil. Philosophy & Public A airs, 15 (4), 325–349.

McConnell, T. C. (1981). Moral blackmail. Ethics, 91 (4), 544–567.

Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self– perception: the interplay of self–deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66 (6), 1025–1060.

Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sharot, T. (2012). The optimism bias: why we’re wired to look on the brightside. London: Robinson.

Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94 (6), 1395–1415.

Walzer, M. (1977). Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. New York: Basic Books.



How to Cite

García Gibson, F. (2018). Critique of consequentialist moral absolutism. Estudios De Filosofía, (57), 161–174.



Original or Research articles

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.