Consequentialism and the nearest and dearest objection
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Ian Ravenscroft (ed.), Minds, Ethics, and Conditionals: Themes from the Philosophy of Frank Jackson. Oxford University Press (2009)
Imagine that Bloggs is faced with a choice between giving a benefit to his child, or a slightly greater benefit to a complete stranger. The benefit is whatever the child or the stranger can buy for $100 — Bloggs has $100 to give away — and it just so happens that the stranger would buy something from which he would gain a slightly greater benefit than would Bloggs's child. Let's stipulate that Bloggs believes this to be, and let's stipulate, as well, that he believes that the consequences of his actions are otherwise identical. He chooses to give the benefit to his child. What do we learn about Bloggs from his choice? We learn that Bloggs cares more about his child than he does about complete strangers. Nor is anyone likely to be surprised by this, for it just goes to show that he is much like the rest of us. He gives preferential treatment to his nearest and dearest when he acts, those with whom he has a special relationship, much as we do.
|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
Carson Strong (2005). Harming by Conceiving: A Review of Misconceptions and a New Analysis. [REVIEW] Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (5):491 – 516.
Sven Ove Hansson (2007). Philosophical Problems in Cost–Benefit Analysis. Economics and Philosophy 23 (2):163-183.
Paul Litton, Non-Beneficial Pediatric Research and the Best Interests Standard: A Legal and Ethical Reconciliation.
Peter Vallentyne (2006). Against Maximizing Act-Consequentialism (June 30, 2008). In James Dreier (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Moral Theories. Blackwell Publishers. 6--21.
Derek Parfit (1997). Equality and Priority. Ratio 10 (3):202–221.
Sonja Grover (2003). On the Limits of Parental Proxy Consent: Children's Right to Non-Participation in Non-Therapeutic Research. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (4):349-383.
Lisa Bortolotti & John Harris (2006). Disability, Enhancement and the Harm -Benefit Continuum. In John R. Spencer & Antje Du Bois-Pedain (eds.), Freedom and Responsibility in Reproductive Choice. Hart Publishers.
M. Delatycki (2005). Response to Spriggs: Is Conceiving a Child to Benefit Another Against the Interest of the New Child? Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (6):343-343.
M. Spriggs (2005). Is Conceiving a Child to Benefit Another Against the Interests of the New Child? Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (6):341-342.
Frank Jackson (1991). Decision-Theoretic Consequentialism and the Nearest and Dearest Objection. Ethics 101 (3):461-482.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads48 ( #33,456 of 1,099,048 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?