Abstract

Non-consequentialist moral theories generally recognise deontic constraints. That is, they hold that certain actions are morally prohibited even if they bring about the best possible outcome. An open question is what such a theory should say about moral reasons to intervene to prevent another person from violating such a constraint. On one view, we have strong moral reasons to intervene in such cases. On another view, we have little or no distinctively non-consequentialist reason to intervene. An interesting feature of the latter view is that it seems to severely limit the reach of non-consequentialist considerations - on such a view, in many cases the applicable reasons go little beyond the consequentialist reasons, even on a view that fundamentally is non-consequentialist. I will try to make some progress on this issue.