tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post1422605466525709891..comments2007-03-13T19:01:20.997-04:00Richardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235r.chappell@gmail.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-21012539369847366362007-03-13T19:01:20.997-04:002007-03-13T19:01:20.997-04:00Hello,<BR/><BR/>I think your interests in ethics go well with those of Peter Railton's (and the sympathies have at least a family resemblance). I read a few of his essays in researching a seminar paper last spring (the paper itself proved to be less valauble than the reading, sadly!). He's not a bad person to read on levels of explanation either (some of his early work was concentrated in phil science).Ignacio Pradohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05748737449040707271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-84827466090229657492007-03-10T18:54:07.799-05:002007-03-10T18:54:07.799-05:00hmm the article has a nice way of putting it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-55149175164999460052007-03-10T00:26:24.447-05:002007-03-10T00:26:24.447-05:00On indirect utilitarianism, unless you are motivated by mostly pragmatic reasons, the following article is, in my opinion, not a bad argument concerning it. I recall it being not specifically against indirect utilitarianism, but I see no reason, due to its use of analogy, why it cannot be applied to indirect utilitarianism.<BR/><BR/>"Global Consequentialism", by Philip Pettit and Michael Smith, in <I>Morality, Rules, and Consequences</I> by Hooker, Mason and Miller (eds.). (also available online through Pettit's Princeton homepage.)Elliotnoreply@blogger.com