McNaughton and Rawling on the Agent-relative/Agent-neutral Distinction

Douglas W. Portmore

doi:10.1017/S095382080000323X

McNaughton and Rawling on the Agent-relative/Agent-neutral Distinction

Douglas W. Portmore

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

In this paper, I criticize David McNaughton and Piers Rawling’s formalization of the agent-relative/agent-neutral distinction. I argue that their formalization is unable to accommodate an important ethical distinction between two types of conditional obligations. I then suggest a way of revising their formalization so as to fix the problem.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	350-356
Number of pages	7
Journal	Utilitas
Volume	13
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1017/S095382080000323X
State	Published - Nov 2001
Externally published	Yes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Philosophy
Sociology and Political Science

Access to Document

10.1017/S095382080000323X

Cite this

@article{ae70f39c5dcd419ab36775c0009c1a11,

title = "McNaughton and Rawling on the Agent-relative/Agent-neutral Distinction",

abstract = "In this paper, I criticize David McNaughton and Piers Rawling{\textquoteright}s formalization of the agent-relative/agent-neutral distinction. I argue that their formalization is unable to accommodate an important ethical distinction between two types of conditional obligations. I then suggest a way of revising their formalization so as to fix the problem.",

author = "Portmore, {Douglas W.}",

year = "2001",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1017/S095382080000323X",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "13",

pages = "350--356",

journal = "Utilitas",

issn = "0953-8208",

publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - McNaughton and Rawling on the Agent-relative/Agent-neutral Distinction

AU - Portmore, Douglas W.

PY - 2001/11

Y1 - 2001/11

N2 - In this paper, I criticize David McNaughton and Piers Rawling’s formalization of the agent-relative/agent-neutral distinction. I argue that their formalization is unable to accommodate an important ethical distinction between two types of conditional obligations. I then suggest a way of revising their formalization so as to fix the problem.

AB - In this paper, I criticize David McNaughton and Piers Rawling’s formalization of the agent-relative/agent-neutral distinction. I argue that their formalization is unable to accommodate an important ethical distinction between two types of conditional obligations. I then suggest a way of revising their formalization so as to fix the problem.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85007943422&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85007943422&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S095382080000323X

DO - 10.1017/S095382080000323X

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85007943422

SN - 0953-8208

VL - 13

SP - 350

EP - 356

JO - Utilitas

JF - Utilitas

IS - 3

ER -

McNaughton and Rawling on the Agent-relative/Agent-neutral Distinction

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this