Third of three lectures by in the 2011 Annual Uehiro Lecture Series "Making Good: The Challenge of Robustly Demanding Values". Delivered by Philip Pettit, Laurance S. Rockefeller University Professor of Politics and Human Values at Princeton University.
The debate between consequentialism and opposing doctrines turns on whether doing right always means doing good: that is, promoting expected value. How is that debate going to develop once we see that we are required to be virtuous, not just to act virtuously; and to be legally constrained, not just to act legally? Which side in the debate is going to be better able to accommodate the robust demands of virtue-based and law-based values?