Utilitarianism could still be a viable moral and political theory, although an emphasis on justice as distributing burdens and benefits has hidden this from current conversations. The traditional counterexamples prove that we have good grounds for rejecting classical, aggregative forms of consequentialism. A nonaggregative, liberal form of utilitarianism is immune to this rejection. The cost is that it cannot adjudicate when the basic needs of individuals or groups are in conflict. Cases like this must be solved by other methods. This is not a weakness in liberal utilitarianism, on the contrary. The theory clarifies what we should admit to begin with: that ethical doctrines do not have universally acceptable solutions to all difficult problems or hard cases. The theory also reminds us that not all problems are in this sense difficult or cases hard. We could alleviate the plight of nonhuman animals by reducing meat eating. We could mitigate climate change and its detrimental effects by choosing better ways of living. These would imply that most people’s desire satisfaction would be partly frustrated, but liberal utilitarianism holds that this would be justified by the satisfaction of the basic needs of other people and nonhuman animals.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0963180120000882
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,700
External links

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

Anarchy, State, and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - Philosophy 52 (199):102-105.
What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources.Ronald Dworkin - 1981 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (4):283 - 345.

View all 41 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

COVID-19 and Beyond: The Need for Copathy and Impartial Advisers.Matti Häyry - forthcoming - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics:1-10.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Act Utilitarianism.Ben Eggleston - 2014 - In Ben Eggleston & Dale E. Miller (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism. Cambridge University Press. pp. 125-145.
The World Destruction Argument.Simon Knutsson - 2019 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy.
Ideal Utilitarianism.Susan Mary Kozal Brennan - 1988 - Dissertation, The University of Iowa
Classical Utilitarianism.John Rawls - 1988 - In Samuel Scheffler (ed.), Consequentialism and its Critics. Oxford University Press.
Utilitarian Alternatives to Act Utilitarianism.Sanford S. Levy - 1997 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 (1):93–112.
Mill's Utilitarianism: Exposition and Evaluation.Golam Azam - 2005 - Philosophy and Progress 37:137.
Liberal Utilitarianism – Yes, but for Whom?Joona Räsänen - 2021 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 30 (2):368-375.


Added to PP index

Total views
6 ( #1,083,130 of 2,432,333 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #138,307 of 2,432,333 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes