The Moral Justification of Benefit/Cost Analysis

Economics and Philosophy 10 (2):169-194 (1994)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Benefit/cost analysis is a technique for evaluating programs, procedures, and actions; it is not a moral theory. There is significant controversy over the moral justification of benefit/cost analysis. When a procedure for evaluating social policy is challenged on moral grounds, defenders frequently seek a justification by construing the procedure as the practical embodiment of a correct moral theory. This has the apparent advantage of avoiding difficult empirical questions concerning such matters as the consequences of using the procedure. So, for example, defenders of benefit/cost analysis (BCA) are frequently tempted to argue that this procedurejust isthe calculation of moral Tightness – perhaps that what itmeansfor an action to be morally right is just for it to have the best benefit-to-cost ratio given the accounts of “benefit” and “cost” that BCA employs. They suggest, in defense of BCA, that they have found the moral calculus – Bentham's “unabashed arithmetic of morals.” To defend BCA in this manner is to commit oneself to one member of a family of moral theories (let us call thembenefit/cost moral theoriesorB/C moral theories) and, also, to the view that if a procedure is (so to speak) the direct implementation of a correct moral theory, then it is a justified procedure. Neither of these commitments is desirable, and so the temptation to justify BCA by direct appeal to a B/C moral theory should be resisted; it constitutes an unwarranted short cut to moral foundations – in this case, an unsound foundation. Critics of BCA are quick to point out the flaws of B/C moral theories, and to conclude that these undermine the justification of BCA. But the failure to justify BCA by a direct appeal to B/C moral theory does not show that the technique is unjustified. There is hope for BCA, even if it does not lie with B/C moral theory.

Similar books and articles

Cost-benefit analysis and non-utilitarian ethics.Rosemary Lowry & Martin Peterson - 2012 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11 (3):1470594-11416767.
Cost-Benefit Analysis and Procedural Values.Douglas MacLean - 1994 - Analyse & Kritik 16 (2):166-180.
Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy and Public Policy.Daniel Hausman, Michael McPherson & Debra Satz - 2006 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Michael S. McPherson.
The Possibility of Inductive Moral Arguments.Mark T. Nelson - 2006 - Philosophical Papers 35 (2):231-246.
Are moral philosophers moral experts?Bernward Gesang - 2008 - Bioethics 24 (4):153-159.
Confirmation theory and moral justification.Edward D. Sherline - 1994 - Philosophical Studies 73 (2-3):225 - 238.
Philosophical problems in cost–benefit analysis.Sven Ove Hansson - 2007 - Economics and Philosophy 23 (2):163-183.
Consequentialism and the Appeal to Cost.Bashshar Harb Haydar - 1996 - Dissertation, Columbia University
Interpretive Experimentalism: A Pragmatic Theory of Moral Norms and Judgment.Todd Michael Lekan - 1996 - Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Moral Theory: An Introduction.Mark Timmons - 2001 - Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
The Relevance of Trust for Moral Justification.Theresa Weynand Tobin - 2011 - Social Theory and Practice 37 (4):599-628.


Added to PP

998 (#14,092)

6 months
145 (#25,349)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Donald Hubin
Ohio State University

References found in this work

Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Anarchy, State, and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - New York: Basic Books.
Morals by agreement.David P. Gauthier - 1986 - New York: Oxford University Press.

View all 18 references / Add more references