About this topic
Summary The defining feature of consequentialism is that it ranks outcomes (the outcomes associated with acts, sets of rules, sets of motives, or something else) and then takes the normative statuses of actions to be some (increasing) function of how those outcomes rank. Little else can be said unequivocally about consequentialism, as consequentialists disagree about most everything else. Consequentialists disagree on whether we should assess the normative statuses of actions directly in terms of how their outcomes rank (act-consequentialism) or indirectly in terms of whether, say, they comply with the code of rules with the highest-ranked associated outcome (rule-consequentialism, motive-consequentialism, etc.). They disagree on whether the relevant function is a maximizing one (maximizing consequentialism) or a satisficing one (satisficing consequentialism). And they disagree on whether there is just one ranking of outcomes that is the same for all agents (agent-neutral consequentialism) or potentially different rankings for each agent (agent-relative consequentialism). As most see it, consequentialism is a theory about the permissibility of actions, but some hold instead that it is a theory about only the comparative moral value of actions (scalar consequentialism). And whereas some hold that consequentialism is committed to ranking outcomes in terms of their impersonal value, others deny this. Even those who agree that outcomes are to be ranked in terms of their impersonal value disagree about whether outcomes are to be ranked in terms of their actual value (objective consequentialism) or their expected value (subjective consequentialism).
Key works See the summaries for each of the sub-categories for suggestions that are specific to the varieties of consequentialism that you are interested in.
Introductions Two good introductions to the many varieties of consequentialism are Portmore 2011 and Brink 2005.
  Show all references
Related categories
Subcategories:
353 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 353
Material to categorize
  1. R. Audi (2001). Brad Hooker, Ideal Code, Real World. Utilitas 13 (3):357-359.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Iep Author, Utilitarianism, Act and Rule.
    Act and Rule Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Like other forms of consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. More specifically, the only effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that they […].
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin (2007). Evaluating Time Streams of Income: Discounting What? [REVIEW] Theory and Decision 63 (2):95-120.
    For decisions whose consequences accrue over time, there are several possible techniques to compute total utility. One is to discount utilities of future consequences at some appropriate rate. The second is to discount per-period certainty equivalents. And the third is to compute net present values (NPVs) of various possible streams and to then apply the utility function to these net present values. We find that the best approach is to first compute NPVs of various possible income streams and then take (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Yitzhak Benbaji (2005). The Doctrine of Sufficiency: A Defence. Utilitas 17 (3):310-332.
    This article proposes an analysis of the doctrine of sufficiency. According to my reading, the doctrine's basic positive claim is ‘prioritarian’: benefiting x is of special moral importance where (and only where) x is badly off. Its negative claim is anti-egalitarian: most comparative facts expressed by statements of the type ‘x is worse off than y’ have no moral significance at all. This contradicts the ‘classical’ priority view according to which, although equality per se does not matter, whenever x is (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Jeffrey Brand (2013). Beyond Consequentialism. Philosophical Review 122 (4):657-661.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Erik Carlson (2001). Review of Brad Hooker: Ideal Code, Real World. [REVIEW] Theoria 67 (3):268-272.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. E. Castagnoli & M. Li Calzi (1996). Expected Utility Without Utility. Theory and Decision 41 (3):281-301.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Tim Chappell (2002). The Demands of Consequentialism. Mind 111 (444):891-897.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Francis C. Chu & Joseph Y. Halpern (2008). Great Expectations. Part I: On the Customizability of Generalized Expected Utility. [REVIEW] Theory and Decision 64 (1):1-36.
    We propose a generalization of expected utility that we call generalized EU (GEU), where a decision maker’s beliefs are represented by plausibility measures and the decision maker’s tastes are represented by general (i.e., not necessarily real-valued) utility functions. We show that every agent, “rational” or not, can be modeled as a GEU maximizer. We then show that we can customize GEU by selectively imposing just the constraints we want. In particular, we show how each of Savage’s postulates corresponds to constraints (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Philip Clark (2002). The Meaning of 'Good' and the Possibility of Value. Philosophical Studies 108 (1-2):31 - 38.
    Moore held that to call something good is to ascribe a property to it. But he denied that the property could be expressed in non-evaluative terms. Can one accept this view of the meaning of good without falling into skepticism about whether anything can be, or be known to be, good? I suggest a way of doing this. The strategy combines the idea that good is semantically entangled, as opposed to semantically isolated, with the idea that rational agents have a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. G. Cullity, Roger Crisp and Brad Hooker (Eds.), Well-Being and Morality: Essays in Honour of James Griffin.
    Book Information Well-Being and Morality: Essays in Honour of James Griffin. Edited by Roger Crisp and Brad Hooker. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 2000. Pp. xii + 316. Hardback, £35.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Richard Dawkins (1999). 14 God's Utility Function. In Eleonore Stump & Michael J. Murray (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: The Big Questions. Blackwell Publishers. 6--109.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Eric B. Dayton (1979). Course of Action Utilitarianism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 9 (4):671 - 684.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. B. J. Diggs (1964). Rules and Utilitarianism. American Philosophical Quarterly 1 (1):32 - 44.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Tom Dougherty (2013). Agent-Neutral Deontology. Philosophical Studies 163 (2):527-537.
    According to the “Textbook View,” there is an extensional dispute between consequentialists and deontologists, in virtue of the fact that only the latter defend “agent-relative” principles—principles that require an agent to have a special concern with making sure that she does not perform certain types of action. I argue that, contra the Textbook View, there are agent-neutral versions of deontology. I also argue that there need be no extensional disagreement between the deontologist and consequentialist, as characterized by the Textbook View.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. A. J. Ellis, J. J. C. Smart, B. Williams & Anthony Quinton (1974). Utilitarianism: For and Against.Utilitarian Ethics. Philosophical Quarterly 24 (96):279.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. J. D. G. Evans (1998). Cummiskey, D.-Kantian Consequentialism. Philosophical Books 39:128-129.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Fred Feldman (2001). Can an Act-Consequentialist Theory Be Agent Relative? DOUGLAS W. PORTMORE. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (2).
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Fernanda Ferreira, Paul E. Engelhardt & Manon W. Jones (2009). Good Enough Language Processing: A Satisficing Approach. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 413--418.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. R. G. Frey (1986). Michael Slote, Common-Sense Morality and Consequentialism Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 6 (5):247-249.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Vasil Gluchman (1996). The Ethics of Utilitarianism and Non-Utilitarian Consequentialism. Filosoficky Casopis 44 (1):123-132.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Marta Gluchmanova (2008). Non-Utilitarian Consequentialism and its Application in the Ethics of Teaching. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 37:67-75.
    This paper aims to present of the ethics of social consequences (a form of non-utilitarian consequentialism) as a theoretical basis for the examination of teacher ethics and a tool for dealing with practical moral problems of the teaching profession. Teachers’ duty is to help students, teach them to recognize the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, show them that they have moral responsibility for their actions and all this can be very well attained on the basis of the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Daniel G. Goldstein & Gerd Gigerenzer (1996). Satisficing Inference and the Perks of Ignorance. In Garrison W. Cottrell (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum. 137--141.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Axel Gosseries (2002). The Demands of Consequentialism. European Journal of Philosophy 10 (2):251-254.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. G. R. Grice & Richard Norman (1972). Reasons for Actions: A Critique of Utilitarian Rationality. Philosophical Quarterly 22 (89):377.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. M. Hajdin (2007). Joseph Mendola, Goodness and Justice: A Consequentialist Moral Theory. Philosophy in Review 27 (3):204.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Mane Hajdin (2010). Joseph Mendola, Goodness and Justice: A Consequentialist Moral Theory Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 27 (3):204-206.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Sven Ove Hansson (2014). The Moral Oracle's Test. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (4):643-651.
    When presented with a situation involving an agent’s choice between alternative actions, a moral oracle says what the agent is allowed to do. The oracle bases her advice on some moral theory, but the nature of that theory is not known by us. The moral oracle’s test consists in determining whether a series of questions to the oracle can be so constructed that her answers will reveal which of two given types of theories she adheres to. The test can be (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Edmund Henden (2007). Is Genuine Satisficing Rational? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (4):339 - 352.
    There have been different interpretations of satisficing rationality. A common view is that it is sometimes rationally permitted to choose an option one judges is good enough even when one does not know that it is the best option. But there is available a more radical view of satisficing. On this view, it is rationally permitted to choose an option one judges is good enough even when a better option is known to be available. In this paper I distinguish between (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Brad Hooker (2008). Rule-Consequentialism and Its Virtues. Rivista di Filosofia 99 (3):491-510.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Brad Hooker, Elinor Mason & Dale Miller (eds.) (2000). Morality, Rules and Consequences: A Critical Reader. Edinburgh University Press.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Thomas Hurka (1990). Two Kinds of Satisficing. Philosophical Studies 59 (1):107 - 111.
    Michael Slote has defended a moral view that he calls "satisficing consequentialism." Less demanding than maximizing consequentialism, it requires only that agents bring about consequences that are "good enough." I argue that Slote's characterization of satisficing is ambiguous. His idea of consequences' being "good enough" admits of two interpretations, with different implications in (some) particular cases. One interpretation I call "absolute-level" satisficing, the other "comparative" satisficing. Once distinguished, these versions of satisficing appear in a very different light. Absolute-level satisficing is (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Wild Justice (1995). Minimal Consequentialism, Peter Caws. Philosophy 70 (3).
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Whitley R. P. Kaufman (1998). The Lion's Den, Othello, and the Limits of Consequentialism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 37 (4):539-557.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Seahwa Kim, Cei Maslen & Counterfactuals as Short (2006). Elisabeth Camp/Metaphor and That Certain Ôje Ne Sais Quoi'1–25 Juan Comesana/a Well–Founded Solution to the Generality Problem 27–47 Fred Feldman/Actual Utility, the Objection From Impracticality, and the Move to Expected Utility 49–79. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 129:667-669.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Kevin C. Klement, Agency, Character and the Real Failure of Consequentialism.
    Certain consequentialists have responded to deontological worries regarding personal projects or options and agent-centered restrictions or constraints by pointing out that it is consistent with consequentialist principles that people develop within themselves, dispositions to act with such things in mind, even if doing so does not lead to the best consequences on every occasion. This paper argues that making this response requires shifting the focus of moral evaluation off of evaluation of individual actions and towards evaluation of whole character traits (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Rahul Kumar (2002). Review of Tim Mulgan, The Demands of Consequentialism. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2002 (8).
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Jacqueline A. Laing (1997). Innocence and Consequentialism. In David S. Oderberg & Jacqueline A. Laing (eds.), Human Lives: Critical Essays on Consequentialist Bioethics. Macmillan. 196--224.
    A critic of utilitarianism, in a paper entitled “Innocence and Consequentialism” Laing argues that Singer cannot without contradicting himself reject baby farming (a thought experiment that involves mass-producing deliberately brain damaged children for live birth for the greater good of organ harvesting) and at the same time hold on to his “personism” a term coined by Jenny Teichman to describe his fluctuating (and Laing says, discriminatory) theory of human moral value. His explanation that baby farming undermines attitudes of care and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. J. Lenman (2003). HOOKER, B.-Ideal Code, Real World. Philosophical Books 44 (2):181-182.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Isaac Lev (2002). Maximizing and Satisficing Evidential Support. In David B. Malament (ed.), Reading Natural Philosophy: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics. Open Court. 315.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Hallvard Lillehammer (2011). Consequentialism and Global Ethics. In Michael Boylan (ed.), The Morality and Global Justice Reader. Westview Press. 89.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Stephen C. Makin (2012). Action Individuation and Deontic Cycling. Ethics 123 (1):129-136.
    Tim Willenken argues that ‘commonsense morality’ is committed to intransitive deontic cycles; that consequentialism cannot countenance such cycles; and that, therefore, the project of compatibilism—making consequentialism and commonsense morality deliver the same moral verdicts, by way of an axiology—cannot succeed. I argue that the appearance of intransitive cycles is made possible only by an idiosyncratic method of action-individuation; when traditional methods are used, the appearance of intransitivity goes away. These results may reopen the door for the compatibilist project.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Peter J. Markie (1977). Fred Feldman and the Cartesian Circle. Philosophical Studies 31 (6):429 - 432.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Rex Martin (2011). Mill's Rule Utilitarianisrn in Context. In Ben Eggleston, Dale E. Miller & D. Weinstein (eds.), John Stuart Mill and the Art of Life. Oxford University Press. 21.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Rex Martin (2007). Two Concepts of Rule Utilitarianism: The Case of Mill. Southwest Philosophy Review 23 (1):49-58.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Mary Margaret McCabe (2005). Out of the Labyrinth: Plato's Attack on Consequentialism. In Christopher Gill (ed.), Virtue, Norms, and Objectivity: Issues in Ancient and Modern Ethics. Clarendon Press.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. From Phenomena To Metaphysics (1994). Ca Hooker. In Dag Prawitz & Dag Westerståhl (eds.), Logic and Philosophy of Science in Uppsala. Kluwer. 159.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Tim Mulgan (2009). Rule Consequentialism and Non-Identity. In David Wasserman & Melinda Roberts (eds.), Harming Future Persons. Springer. 115--134.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Tim Mulgan (1996). One False Virtue of Rule Consequentialism, and One New Vice. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 77 (4):362-373.
    A common objection to _act consequentialism (AC) is that it makes unreasonable demands on moral agents. _Rule consequentialism (RC) is often presented as a less demanding alternative. It is argued that this alleged virtue of RC is false, as RC will not be any less demanding in practice than AC. It is then demonstrated that RC has an additional (hitherto unnoticed) vice, as it relies upon the undefended simplifying assumption that the best possible consequences would arise in a society in (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Stephen Nathanson, Utilitarianism, Act and Rule. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Act and Rule Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Like other forms of consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. More specifically, the only effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that they […].
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 353