Abstract
In the last half century, decision theory has had a deep influence on moral theory. Its impact has largely been beneficial. However, it has also given rise to some problems, two of which are discussed here. First, issues such as risk-taking and risk imposition have been left out of ethics since they are believed to belong to decision theory, and consequently the ethical aspects of these issues have not been treated in either discipline. Secondly, ethics has adopted the decision-theoretical idea that action-guidance has to be based on cause–effect or means–ends relationships between an individual action and its possible outcomes. This is problematic since the morally relevant connections between an action and future events are not fully covered by such relationships. In response to the first problem it is proposed that moral theory should deal directly and extensively with issues such as risk-taking and risk imposition, thereby intruding unabashedly into the traditional territory of decision theory. As a partial response to the second problem it is proposed that moral theorizing should release itself from the decision-theoretical requirement that the moral status of an action has to be derivable from the consequences (or other properties) that are assignable to that action alone. In particular, the effects that an action can have in combination with other actions by the same or other agents are valid arguments in an action-guiding moral discourse, even if its contribution to these combined consequences cannot be isolated and evaluated separately.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
“...the movements of a clock or other automaton follow from the arrangement of its counter-weights and wheels.”
References
Berger R (1998) Understanding science: why causes are not enough. Philos Sci 65:306–332
Busescu D, Fischer I (2001) The same but different: an empirical investigation of the reducibility principle. Theory Decis 32:77–100
Dent EB (2003) The interaction model: an alternative to the direct cause and effect construct for mutually causal organizational phenomena. Found Sci 8:295–314
Descartes R ([1632]1987) Traité de l’Homme. In: Descartes R (ed) Oeuvres et lettres. Textes présentés par André Bridoux. Gallimard, Paris
Foot P (1967) The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxf Rev 5:5–15, Reprinted in her Virtues and Vices, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978
Guay R (2005) A refutation of consequentialism. Metaphilosophy 36:348–362
Hampton J (1995) Does Hume have an instrumental conception of practical reason. Hume Stud 21:57–74
Hansson SO (1993) The false promises of risk analysis. Ratio 6:16–26
Hansson SO (1996) Decision-making under great uncertainty. Philos Soc Sci 26:369–386
Hansson SO (2001) The modes of value. Philos Stud 104:33–46
Hansson SO (2003) Ethical criteria of risk acceptance. Erkenntnis 59:291–309
Hansson SO (2004a) Weighing risks and benefits. Topoi 23:145–152
Hansson SO (2004b) Fallacies of risk. J Risk Res 7:353–360
Hansson SO (2004c) Great uncertainty about small things. Techne 8(2). Retrievable from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v8n2/hansson.html
Hansson SO (2007) Philosophical problems in cost-benefit analysis. Econ Philos 23:163–183
Harrison J (1953) Utilitarianism, universalisation, and our duty to be just. Proc Aristotelian Soc 53:105–134
Hausman DM, Woodward J (1999) Independence, invariance and the causal markov condition. Br J Philos Sci 50:521–583
Hermansson H, Hansson SO (2007) A three party model tool for ethical risk analysis. Risk Manage 9:129–144
Hoover KD (1990) The logic of causal inference. Econ Philos 6:207–234
Karni E, Schmeidler D (1991) Atemporal dynamic consistency and expected utility theory. J Econ Theory 54:401–408
Kernohan A (2000) Individual acts and accumulative consequences. Philos Stud 97:343–366
Kuhn TS (1971) La notion de causalité dans le devéloppement de la physique. In: Bunge M (ed) Les Théories de la Causalité. Presses univ. de France, Paris, pp 4–15
Lenman J (2000) Consequentialism and cluelessness. Philos Public Aff 29:342–370
Mackie JL (1974) The cement of the universe: a study of causation. Clarendon, Oxford
Mill JS (1996) Introduction by R. F. McRae. In: John M. Robson (ed) Collected of works of John Stuart Mill. Vol. 7, A system of logic ratiocinative and inductive: being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation, 1:books 1–3. Routledge, London
Millgram E (1995) Was Hume a Humean? Hume Stud 21:75–93
Österberg J (1989) One more turn on the lawn. In: Lindström S, Rabinowicz W (eds) In so many words. Philosophical essays dedicated to Sven Danielsson on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday. Uppsala University, Department of Philosophy, Uppsala, pp 125–133
Russell B (1913) On the notion of a cause. Proc Aristotelian Soc 13:1–26, Reprinted in Russel B (1994) Mysticism and Logic, pp. 173–199. London: Routledge
Schoemaker PJH (1982) The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J Econ Lit 20:529–563
Simons KW (1999) Negligence. In: Paul EF, Miller FD Jr, Paul J (eds) Responsibility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 52–93
Sosa D (1993) Consequences of consequentialism. Mind 102:101–122
Thomson JJ (1971) A defense of abortion. Philos Public Aff 1:47–66
Vallentyne P (1987) Utilitarianism and the outcome of actions. Pac Philos Q 68:57–70
Williams B (1973) A critique of utilitarianism. In: Smart JJC, Williams B (eds) Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge University Press, London
Zamir T (2001) One consequence of consequentialism: morality and overdetermination. Erkenntnis 55:15–168
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hansson, S.O. The Harmful Influence of Decision Theory on Ethics. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 13, 585–593 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-010-9232-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-010-9232-0