Does consequentialism make too many demands, or none at all?

Abstract

This article explores the idea that consequentialism demands too much due to its requirement to promote the greater good, even at the cost of personal interests. It reviews three recent works to investigate this objection. However, it concludes that these works do not adequately support this argument. The first work provides a historical survey of supererogation but lacks justification for its conclusion. The second work offers an incommensurability of reasons that precludes an explanation for moral requirements. The third work suggests a conflict between objective and subjective perspectives but fails to explain why adopted desires do not generate reasons for action. The article highlights the need for a more thorough examination to settle this debate. – AI-generated abstract.