Philosophical Studies 129 (1):49-79 (2006)

Abstract
Utilitarians are attracted to the idea that an act is morally right iff it leads to the best outcome. But critics have pointed out that in many cases we cannot determine which of our alternatives in fact would lead to the best outcome. So we can’t use the classic principle to determine what we should do. It’s not “practical”; it’s not “action-guiding”. Some take this to be a serious objection to utilitarianism, since they think a moral theory ought to be practical and action-guiding. In response, some utilitarians propose to modify utilitarianism by replacing talk of actual utility with talk of expected utility. Others propose to leave the original utilitarian principle in place, but to combine it with a decision procedure involving expected utility. What all these philosophers have in common is this: they move toward expected utility in order to defend utilitarianism against the impracticality objection. My aim in this paper is to cast doubt on this way of replying to the objection. My central claim is that if utilitarians are worried about the impracticality objection, they should not turn to expected utility utilitarianism. That theory does not provide the basis for a cogent reply to the objection.
Keywords Philosophy   Philosophy   Epistemology   Logic   Philosophy of Mind   Philosophy of Religion
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-005-3021-y
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,391
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Wise Choices, Apt Feelings.Allan Gibbard - 1990 - Ethics 102 (2):342-356.
Utilitarianism: For and Against.J. J. C. Smart & Bernard Williams - 1973 - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

View all 31 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Cluelessness.Hilary Greaves - 2016 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 116 (3):311-339.
Why Take Both Boxes?Jack Spencer & Ian Wells - 2019 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 99 (1):27-48.
Subjective Rightness.Holly M. Smith - 2010 - Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (2):64-110.
In Dubious Battle: Uncertainty and the Ethics of Killing.Seth Lazar - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (4):859-883.
The Case Against Consequentialism: Methodological Issues.Nikil Mukerji - 2013 - In Miguel Holtje, Thomas Spitzley & Wolfgang Spohn (eds.), GAP.8 Proceedings. GAP (2013). Gesellschaft für Analytische Philosophie. pp. 654-665.

View all 19 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Decision-Value Utilitarianism.Wesley Cooper - 2008 - Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):39-50.
Expected Utility Without Utility.E. Castagnoli & M. Li Calzi - 1996 - Theory and Decision 41 (3):281-301.
A Process Approach to the Utility for Gambling.Marc Le Menestrel - 2001 - Theory and Decision 50 (3):249-262.
Conditional Utility and its Place in Decision Theory.Paul Weirich - 1980 - Journal of Philosophy 77 (11):702-715.
Revealed Preference and Expected Utility.Stephen A. Clark - 2000 - Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Two Errors in The?Allais Impossibility Theorem?Mark J. Machina - 1995 - Theory and Decision 38 (3):231-250.
Interval Scalability of Rank-Dependent Utility.Mikhail V. Sokolov - 2011 - Theory and Decision 70 (3):255-282.
Utility and Framing.Paul Weirich - 2010 - Synthese 176 (1):83 - 103.
Nozick, Ramsey, and Symbolic Utility.Wesley Cooper - 2008 - Utilitas 20 (3):301-322.
The Limits of Rationality.Patrick Suppes - 1981 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 12 (1):85-101.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
342 ( #19,598 of 2,326,290 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #50,559 of 2,326,290 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes