Foot's argument assumes that agent-relative constraints cannot be accommodated within a consequentialist framework, but scalar consequentialism (as defended by Norcross) denies this.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Agent-relative constraints(the type of moral limitation being discussed): Moral rules that apply differently depending on who is doing the action—rules that limit what *you* can do, even if someone else doing it might be acceptable.
Foot (Philippa Foot)(Her argument is being discussed in this statement about moral reasoning): A famous 20th-century philosopher who wrote influential arguments about ethics and how we should make moral decisions.
Norcross(cited as the defender of a particular moral theory): A contemporary philosopher who defends and develops the theory of scalar consequentialism.
Scalar consequentialism(the specific type of consequentialism being discussed): A version of consequentialism that judges actions on a sliding scale of how good or bad their consequences are, rather than dividing actions into simply 'right' or 'wrong.'

Based on where you are in your exploration