Rethinking Demandingness: Why Satisficing Consequentialism and Scalar Consequentialism are not Less Demanding than Maximizing Consequentialism

Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 10 (1):1-8 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX


What does it mean to object to a moral theory, such as maximizing consequentialism, on the grounds that it is too demanding? It is apparently to say that its requirements are implausibly stringent. This suggests an obvious response: Modify the theory so that its requirements are no longer as stringent. A consequentialist may do this either by placing the requirement threshold below maximization – thereby arriving at satisficing consequentialism – or, more radically, by dispensing with deontological notions such as “requirement” altogether – thereby arriving at scalar consequentialism. Suppose, however, that a moral theory’s demandingness is not a matter of its requirements being stringent, but whether it entails that we have most reason, all things considered, to undertake burdensome actions. If this is the right account of demandingness – as I shall argue – then neither modification necessarily alleviates demandingness. We are led to the surprising conclusion that neither satisficing consequentialism nor scalar consequentialism is inherently less demanding than their more familiar maximizing counterpart. They are less demanding only when supplemented with ancillary, and controversial, assumptions.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,528

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Moral Demands and Ethical Theory: The Case of Consequentialism.Attila Tanyi - 2015 - In Barry Dainton & Howard Robinson (eds.), Bloomsbury Companion to Analytic Philosophy. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 500-527.
7 Consequentialism.Douglas W. Portmore - 2011 - In Christian Miller (ed.), Continuum Companion to Ethics. Continuum. pp. 143.
Heavy duty: on the demands of consequentialism.Björn Eriksson - 1994 - [Stockholm]: Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
The impotence of the demandingness objection.David Sobel - 2007 - Philosophers' Imprint 7:1-17.
How Satisficers Get Away with Murder.Tim Mulgan - 2001 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9 (1):41 – 46.
The rights and wrongs of consequentialism.Brian McElwee - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 151 (3):393 - 412.
Slote's Satisficing Consequentialism.Tim Mulgan - 1993 - Ratio 6 (2):121 - 134.
The rejection of scalar consequentialism.Rob Lawlor - 2009 - Utilitas 21 (1):100-116.
Two kinds of satisficing.Thomas Hurka - 1990 - Philosophical Studies 59 (1):107 - 111.
Against satisficing consequentialism.Ben Bradley - 2006 - Utilitas 18 (2):97-108.
The demands of consequentialism.Tim Mulgan - 2001 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Is Rule-Consequentialism a Rubber Duck?Brad Hooker - 1994 - Analysis 54 (2):92 - 97.


Added to PP

79 (#189,766)

6 months
8 (#155,025)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Spencer Case
University of Colorado, Boulder

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Famine, Affluence, and Morality.Peter Singer - 1972 - Oxford University Press USA.
Famine, affluence, and morality.Peter Singer - 1972 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (3):229-243.
Utilitarianism: For and Against.J. J. C. Smart & Bernard Williams - 1973 - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Bernard Williams.
Moral saints.Susan Wolf - 1982 - Journal of Philosophy 79 (8):419-439.

View all 19 references / Add more references