David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoria 73 (1):46 - 67 (2008)
Theorists have consistently maintained that the most plausible forms of objective consequentialism must be probabilistic if and only if indeterminism is true. This standard position, however popular, lacks sufficient motivation. Assume determinism to be true and an attempt will be made to show that attractive forms of objective consequentialism must be probabilistic - and not for reasons related to our epistemic limitations either. Here it is argued that all extant objective formulations of consequentialism fail to deliver the normative implications that the spirit of objective consequentialism requires. My argument rests upon the claim that certain pairs of subjunctive conditionals with identical antecedents and incompatible consequents are such that neither of the pair is true. Upon leveling the objection, the concept of an "objective" subjunctive probability is introduced and utilized in the transformation of a subjective version of expected act utility consequentialism into an objective version, one that is capable of dealing with the difficulties posed by the objection. I end by indicating some ways in which the closest thing to a plausible, objective form of consequentialism might be developed.
|Keywords||subjunctive objective consequentialism probability utilitarianism|
|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
David K. Lewis (1973). Counterfactuals. Blackwell Publishers.
David K. Lewis (1983). Philosophical Papers. Oxford University Press.
A. N. Prior (2003). Papers on Time and Tense. Oxford University Press.
David Lewis (1979). Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow. Noûs 13 (4):455-476.
Michael J. Zimmerman (1996). The Concept of Moral Obligation. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Rob van Someren Greve (2013). Objective Consequentialism and Avoidable Imperfections. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (3):481-492.
Jean-Paul Vessel (2016). Against Securitism, the New Breed of Actualism in Consequentialist Thought. Utilitas 28 (2):164-178.
Jean-Paul Vessel (2009). Defending a Possibilist Insight in Consequentialist Thought. Philosophical Studies 142 (2):183 - 195.
Similar books and articles
Edmund Henden (2007). Restrictive Consequentialism and Real Friendship. Ratio 20 (2):179–193.
Frances Howard-Snyder (1999). Response to Carlson and Qizilbash. Utilitas 11 (1):106-111.
Vuko Andrić (2013). Objective Consequentialism and the Licensing Dilemma. Philosophical Studies 162 (3):547-566.
Erik Carlson (1999). The Oughts and Cans of Objective Consequentialism. Utilitas 11 (1):91-96.
Mozaffar Qizilbash (1999). The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism: A Comment. Utilitas 11 (1):97-105.
Frances Howard-Snyder (1997). The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism. Utilitas 9 (2):241-248.
Scott Forschler (2009). Truth and Acceptance Conditions for Moral Statements Can Be Identical: Further Support for Subjective Consequentialism. Utilitas 21 (3):337-346.
Added to index2009-07-18
Total downloads47 ( #94,151 of 1,934,425 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #269,405 of 1,934,425 )
How can I increase my downloads?