That we have a duty not to break a promise is often presented as a reason to reject consequentialism. Sinnott-Armstrong has argued, however, that in fact consequentialism provides the best account of the duty not to break a promise (2009; see also Sinnott-Armstrong 1992). I will argue that Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument fails. The phenomena of promising remain a reason to reject the view that all of morality consists in our duty to produce the best consequences. That is not to say that we do not have a duty to produce the best consequences. Rather, the duty to produce the best consequences is, like the duty not to break a promise, one of a plurality of moral duties.

...

According to Sinnott-Armstrong, the best explanation of the strength...

Article PDF first page preview

Article PDF first page preview
Article PDF first page preview
You do not currently have access to this article.