In your original post, please address the following: Summarize the essence of the Consequentialism and its difficulties in Chapters 9 & 10 (pages 120-159) and identify two or three of the strongest arguments in favor of consequentialism and at least one major weakness of the theory. Again, think about the features, intuitions, experience, and typical conceptual ideas that tend to support the theory. What is the theory trying to accomplish? What are some good philosophical objections against the argument? Pay particular attention to Rule Consequentialism in your response. Do you find the argument compelling? Why or why not? (Remember to offer philosophical reasons, not personal reasons for your point of view.) Finally, use your knowledge of consequentialism and its various strengths and weaknesses to argue for or against Philippa Foot’s alternative to the doctrine of double effect. Do you think her theory has advantages or disadvantages over the doctrine of double effect in light of consequentialist ethics? Cf., Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect in Shafer-Landau, The Ethical Life, Philippa Foot, 357-369.
Again, be creative in your response but substantiate all your claims with good arguments and good reasons. For example, what type of normative ethical theory is consequentialism, and what is the driving force behind Foot’s challenge to the doctrine of double effect? Why does this matter? In other words, since we are now looking at different normative theories for moral living, does consequentialism fare any better than religion and morality or natural law? Notice that we are attempting to build on our discussions.