It is sometimes claimed that any consequentialist view of ethics has monstrous implications which make such a conception of morality untenable. What we must do—so the claim goes—is reject all forms of consequentialism and accept what has been labeled 'conservativism' or 'moral absolutism.' By 'conservativism' is meant, here, a normative ethical theory which maintains that there is a privileged moral principle or cluster of moral principles, prescribing determinate actions, with which it would always be wrong not to act in accordance no matter what the consequences. A key example of such a principle is the claim that it is always wrong to kill an innocent human, whatever the consequences of not doing so.
I will argue that such moral conservativism is itself unjustified and, indeed, has morally unacceptable consequences, while consequentialism does not have implications which are morally monstrous and does not contain evident moral mistakes.
(Kai Nielsen, "Against Moral Conservativism," Ethics 82 [April 1972]: 219-31, at 219)
Note from KBJ: Nielsen commits the fallacy of false dichotomy. He assumes, falsely, that there are only two types of normative ethical theory: consequentialism and absolutist deontology (the latter of which he calls, strangely, "moral conservativism" [note the spelling]). He thinks that if one rejects the latter, one is committed to the former. That would be true if there were only two types of normative ethical theory, but there are three. What is the third type? If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you know the answer.
Note 2 from KBJ: It's not clear why Nielsen calls absolutism "conservativism." Certainly there is no necessary connection between moral absolutism and political conservatism. To see this, consider the issue of torture. Many of those who call for an absolute prohibition of torture, such as Jeremy Waldron, are political progressives. Another example is Ronald Dworkin, also a progressive, who has argued that rights are trumps. Either he misunderstands what a trump card is or he believes that certain rights must be respected whatever the consequences. Perhaps when Nielsen wrote these words, in 1972, there were no absolutist progressives, but there are now! Some absolutists are politically conservative and some are politically progressive.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 