The most familiar objections to consequentialism claim that the theory gives counterintuitive answers to certain moral questions: requiring us to make massive donations to distant impoverished persons, for example, or permitting us to kill someone and harvest his vital organs to save others. But some consequentialists respond that our intuitions about such cases are themselves mistaken. Paul Hurley's ambitious book challenges consequentialism in a more fundamental way, arguing that the theory is internally inconsistent. The book addresses central issues in normative ethics. It is organized, lucid, and enjoyable to read. Hurley's arguments combine into an elegant whole. Much of the book is a kind of second-order project that consolidates, generalizes, and reframes critiques of consequentialism that others have made: arguments from “demandingness, alienation, confinement, and integrity” (21). Hurley poses questions that consequentialists must answer. Perhaps consequentialists can answer them, but doing so will help...

You do not currently have access to this content.