David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Environmental Ethics 26 (2):189-203 (2004)
Act utilitarians often use causation in after-the-fact assessments of accountability in group environmental harms. Such attempts are seriously flawed. Causation need not, and many times should not, be important in assessments of accountability for act utilitarians. A model that maximizes utility in such assessments called the “best fit model” provides a good alternative. Because use of this model leads to more utility than models of after-the-fact accountability which rely on causal links, act utilitarians should adhere to the “best fit model” regardless of actual causal links. Although the “best fit model” is a better method to assign accountability using an act utilitarian approach than methods involving causation, it does have a serious flaw in regard to application and future utility. Given this flaw, the model (indeed, any after-the-fact model of accountability) is not enough to ensure future utility maximization. To maximize utility to the fullest, the model should be used along with incentives to prevent environmental harm before it occurs. Perhaps if such incentives are strong enough, the model may not need to be imposed at all. However, in cases where harm does occur, the “best fit model” yields the most utility. Thus, if the “best fit model” is not an acceptable method by which to assess responsibility, neither is act utilitarianism
|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
Jos Lehmann, Joost Breuker & Bob Brouwer (2004). Causation in AI and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):279-315.
Marc le Menestrel (2001). A Process Approach to the Utility for Gambling. Theory and Decision 50 (3):249-262.
Afschin Gandjour & Karl Wilhelm Lauterbach (2003). Utilitarian Theories Reconsidered: Common Misconceptions, More Recent Developments, and Health Policy Implications. Health Care Analysis 11 (3):229-244.
Ulrich Schmidt (2001). Lottery Dependent Utility: A Reexamination. Theory and Decision 50 (1):35-58.
Stephen A. Clark (2000). Revealed Preference and Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Gerald Lang (2004). A Dilemma for Objective Act-Utilitarianism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3 (2):221-239.
Peter Vallentyne (1993). Utilitarianism and Infinite Utility. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 71 (2):212 – 217.
Fred Feldman (2006). Actual Utility, the Objection From Impracticality, and the Move to Expected Utility. Philosophical Studies 129 (1):49 - 79.
Daniel Hunter (1994). Act Utilitarianism and Dynamic Deliberation. Erkenntnis 41 (1):1 - 35.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #110,930 of 1,410,432 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #107,949 of 1,410,432 )
How can I increase my downloads?