ABSTRACT
This chapter considers G. E. Moore’s theory of right conduct in the context of other consequentialist theories. Moore’s ideal consequentialism takes the deontic status of an action to depend entirely on the value of its effects and is therefore a form of act consequentialism. The agent-neutrality of the principles entails that, contra relativism and subjectivism, ascriptions of value donor necessarily involve the perspective of the agent. A chief practical problem facing ideal consequentialism and other varieties of act consequentialism is their seeming failure to provide such guidance, especially in light of constraints in time and ability for calculating the effects of actions. Moore cannot accept such a verdict. Moore recommended the generally accepted rules of common morality as a decision procedure on the grounds that doing so is conducive to best results over time. True, Moore also thought that the effects of an action get somewhat diluted over time, as other contributory causes intervene.
