David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ratio 25 (2):177-194 (2012)
This article introduces and explores a distinction between multi-dimensional and one-dimensional consequentialist moral theories. One-dimensional consequentialists believe that an act's deontic status depends on just one aspect of the act, such as the sum total of wellbeing it produces, or the sum total of priority- or equality-adjusted wellbeing. Multi-dimensional consequentialists believe that an act's deontic status depends on more than one aspect. They may, for instance, believe that the sum total of wellbeing produced by an act and the degree to which the wellbeing is equally distributed in the population affect the act's deontic status independently of each other. These two aspects cannot be reduced into any single (composite) aspect. Wellbeing and equality are two separate considerations that cannot be merged into some novel entity that accurately reflects both intuitions. On the multi-dimensional view I defend, such clashes between separate aspects are irresolvable and are best accounted for by claiming that moral rightness and wrongness are non-binary concepts. Some acts are, literally speaking, a little bit right (because they maximise wellbeing) and a little bit wrong (because they do not maximise equality).1
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Martin Peterson (2010). Can Consequentialists Honour the Special Moral Status of Persons? Utilitas 22 (4):434-446.
Maarten Marx (1997). Multi-Dimensional Modal Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jennifer Spenader & Emar Maier (2009). Contrast as Denial in Multi-Dimensional Semantics. Journal of Pragmatics 41:1707-26.
Douglas W. Portmore (2008). Dual-Ranking Act-Consequentialism. Philosophical Studies 138 (3):409 - 427.
Ori J. Herstein (2013). Why 'Nonexistent People' Do Not Have Zero Wellbeing but No Wellbeing at All. Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (2):136-145.
Mark Day (2008). Our Relations with the Past. Philosophia 36 (4):417-427.
David J. Chalmers (2006). The Foundations of Two-Dimensional Semantics. In Manuel Garcia-Carpintero & Josep Macia (eds.), Two-Dimensional Semantics: Foundations and Applications. Oxford University Press 55-140.
Linda D. Lerner & Gerald E. Fryxell (1988). An Empirical Study of the Predictors of Corporate Social Performance: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 7 (12):951 - 959.
Achille C. Varzi (2011). The Plan of a Square. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 41 (5):137-144.
Matt Ferkany (2012). The Objectivity of Wellbeing. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (4):472-492.
Larry Alexander (2008). Scalar Properties, Binary Judgments. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (2):85–104.
Added to index2011-02-14
Total downloads17 ( #238,106 of 2,211,947 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #163,235 of 2,211,947 )
How can I increase my downloads?