The Nature Of Kantian Consequentialism

4664 Words19 Pages
For Silber, Kantian consequentialism is benign because it does not concern the actual consequence of an action but rather the willed consequences. When agents act as the result of an imaginary law, expected or intended consequences of an act result. As we have seen Silber argues that the nature of Kantian consequentialism is subjunctive consequentialism as the inhabitants of consequences of an act all acted on maxims which were analyzed according to the subjunctive consequences of the action as spelled out in this sentence. As Silber’s simpler but less precise formulation “the moral man considers what other men would have to do if his maxim were a universal law” (Silber 213).
However, how do agents following subjectively casual laws achieve objective self-reference? To answer this, Silber points out that Kant’s proceduralism presupposes a moral context - no rational egoists exists in the
…show more content…
Kantian consequentialism or specifically subjunctive consequentialism still seems unable to inform a permissible or impermissible maxim. If the subjunctive consequences possess no moral weight, Kant will be no better off than a Utilitarian who contends that Kant’s ethics is completely formal. Utilitarianism straightforwardly holds that the consequences of an act compromise the moral weight in the procedure, as, for example, when an agent prefers satisfaction or happiness. However, why is happiness held as the means by which one justifies consequences or maximized good, rather than suffering? Utilitarianism does not pretend to give a purely formal answer. Likewise, Kant must assign some moral content to subjunctive consequences. While much detail may exist in these consequences through the typic (the nature of law) and while all possibilities of the kingdom of ends might be specified and imagined, the permissibility of maxims is still
Get Access