AAP 2026 CONFERENCE

Many of us – ordinary people and moral philosophers alike – sound very much like rule-consequentialists. We are willing to revise and refine the rules that we endorse, the institutions that we embrace, the virtues that we espouse, and vices that we deplore; moreover, we believe – quite rightly – in doing so in light of the consequences that such things produce. But of course if we think that consequences are so important, shouldn’t we simply be an act-consequentialists instead? In this paper I will be pointing out the curious sense in which act-consequentialists are deeply untrustworthy; recognising the practical wisdom imbedded in various established rules, practices, institutions, virtues and attitudes; and generally trying to show how to avoid sliding down the notorious slippery slope that can lead to a collapse into act-consequentialism. While it can be tempting to think that moral philosophy is largely concerned with devising an ideal procedure for decision-making, my suggestion is that it should also be focussed – perhaps amongst other things – on articulating a shareable ethos, on the cultivation of certain feelings and emotions, on the development of virtuous and flourishing human beings, and on defending – via consequentialist reasons – the prioritisation of various agent-relative obligations over impartial obligations.