Abstract: David S. Oderberg analyzes in his speech some of the fundamental problems which are connected with the consequentalistic thought. Specifically, he focuses on those problems which make the consequentalism an utterly rejectable and dangerous moral theory. He introduces the consequentalists’ perception of the concepts of possession, value, respect, justice and attempts to deconstruct the perception in question by using solid arguments.
This is an introductory talk on why I am not a consequentialist. I am not going to go into the details of consequentialist theory, or to compare and contrast different versions of consequentialism. Nor am I going to present all the reasons I am not a consequentialist, let alone all the reasons why you should not be one. All I want to do is focus on some key problems that in my view, and the view of many others, make consequentialism a totally unacceptable moral theory – a theory about what is right, what is good, or obligatory, or forbidden, or permissible, or praiseworthy.
Read full article: https://intellectum.org/articles/issues/intellectum6/en/ITL06p005015_Why%20I%20am%20not%20a%20consequentialist_David%20S%20%20Oderberg.pdf
