Skip to main content
Log in

The Harmful Influence of Decision Theory on Ethics

  • Published:
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In axiomatic treatments of decision theory, the exclusion of (3) and similar aspects is closely related to the reduction of compound lotteries axiom (reducibility axiom). See and Karni and Schmeidler (1991) and Busescu and Fischer (2001).

  2. http://www.fhi.se/templates/Page_8251.aspx.

  3. “...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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busescu D, Fischer I (2001) The same but different: an empirical investigation of the reducibility principle. Theory Decis 32:77–100

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Descartes R ([1632]1987) Traité de l’Homme. In: Descartes R (ed) Oeuvres et lettres. Textes présentés par André Bridoux. Gallimard, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Guay R (2005) A refutation of consequentialism. Metaphilosophy 36:348–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampton J (1995) Does Hume have an instrumental conception of practical reason. Hume Stud 21:57–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (1993) The false promises of risk analysis. Ratio 6:16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (1996) Decision-making under great uncertainty. Philos Soc Sci 26:369–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2001) The modes of value. Philos Stud 104:33–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2003) Ethical criteria of risk acceptance. Erkenntnis 59:291–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2004a) Weighing risks and benefits. Topoi 23:145–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson SO (2004b) Fallacies of risk. J Risk Res 7:353–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J (1953) Utilitarianism, universalisation, and our duty to be just. Proc Aristotelian Soc 53:105–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman DM, Woodward J (1999) Independence, invariance and the causal markov condition. Br J Philos Sci 50:521–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermansson H, Hansson SO (2007) A three party model tool for ethical risk analysis. Risk Manage 9:129–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover KD (1990) The logic of causal inference. Econ Philos 6:207–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karni E, Schmeidler D (1991) Atemporal dynamic consistency and expected utility theory. J Econ Theory 54:401–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kernohan A (2000) Individual acts and accumulative consequences. Philos Stud 97:343–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenman J (2000) Consequentialism and cluelessness. Philos Public Aff 29:342–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackie JL (1974) The cement of the universe: a study of causation. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker PJH (1982) The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J Econ Lit 20:529–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons KW (1999) Negligence. In: Paul EF, Miller FD Jr, Paul J (eds) Responsibility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 52–93

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sosa D (1993) Consequences of consequentialism. Mind 102:101–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JJ (1971) A defense of abortion. Philos Public Aff 1:47–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallentyne P (1987) Utilitarianism and the outcome of actions. Pac Philos Q 68:57–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams B (1973) A critique of utilitarianism. In: Smart JJC, Williams B (eds) Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamir T (2001) One consequence of consequentialism: morality and overdetermination. Erkenntnis 55:15–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Ove Hansson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-010-9232-0

Keywords

Navigation