David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy Research Archives 14:143-163 (1988)
The purpose of this paper is to clarify the concept of marginal consequences of a group moral action. The situations in which a group action is taken are studied and classified. The assumption that the agents of a group action are similarly (or symmetrically) situated is clearly specified and emphasized. Then a probabilistic approach is used to determine the marginal consequences of a group action. It is shown that the refutation of utilitarian generalization by Bart Gruzalski is unjustified because of his misinterpretation of marginal consequences. Finally the delicate situations of maximizing and minimizing conditions are analyzed. It is concluded that if the probability of participation p is not known, then the contributory consequences approach is the only approach that can be used. If the probability of participation p is known or can be estimated, then the use of the marginal consequences approach seems to be justified and preferable
|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
J. L. Nelson (1988). Animals, Handicapped Children and the Tragedy of Marginal Cases. Journal of Medical Ethics 14 (4):191-193.
Julia Tanner (2011). The Argument From Marginal Cases: Is Species a Relevant Difference. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (32):225-235.
Alastair Norcross (1990). Consequentialism and the Unforeseeable Future. Analysis 50 (4):253 - 256.
Peter Olsthoorn (2011). Intentions and Consequences in Military Ethics. Journal of Military Ethics 10 (2):81-93.
Holly Smith (2010). Measuring the Consequences of Rules. Utilitas 22 (4):413-433.
Vasil Gluchman (2007). Human Dignity and Non-Utilitarian Consequentialist "Ethics of Social Consequences". The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 1 (7):159-165.
Julia Tanner (2009). The Argument From Marginal Cases and the Slippery Slope Objection. Environmental Values 18 (1):51-66.
Peter Vallentyne (1995). Infinite Utility: Anonymity and Person-Centredness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73 (3):413 – 420.
Mathias Risse (2002). Harsanyi's 'Utilitarian Theorem' and Utilitarianism. Noûs 36 (4):550–577.
James L. Hudson (1987). The Diminishing Marginal Value of Happy People. Philosophical Studies 51 (1):123 - 137.
Daniel Nolan (2009). Consequentialism and Side Constraints. Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (1):5-22.
Teun J. Dekker (2009). Choices, Consequences and Desert. Inquiry 52 (2):109 – 126.
Andrey Chia & Swee Mee Lim (2000). The Effects of Issue Characteristics on the Recognition of Moral Issues. Journal of Business Ethics 27 (3):255-269.
Paul Weirich (1988). Trustee Decisions in Investment and Finance. Journal of Business Ethics 7 (1-2):73 - 80.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads13 ( #285,544 of 1,935,139 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #434,530 of 1,935,139 )
How can I increase my downloads?