Justicized Consequentialism: Prioritizing the Right or the Good?

Journal of Value Inquiry 46 (4):467-479 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX


A standard criticism of act-utilitarianism is that it is only indirectly concerned with the distribution of welfare between individuals and, therefore, does not take adequate account of the separateness between individuals. In response a number of philosophers have argued that act-utilitarianism is only vulnerable to that objection because it adheres to a theory of the good which ignores non-welfarist sources of intrinsic value such as justice. Fred Feldman, for example, argues that intrinsic value is independently generated by the receipt of welfare and the degree to which receipt accords with the demands of justice, and that an action is right insofar as it maximizes the sum of both those sources of value. In response it is argued that justicized consequentialism only blocks the objection at the expense of presupposing deontological constraints. In addition, it is argued that the value of justice cannot be explained non-deontically and, therefore, that the proposed theory is not consequentialist all the way down



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,621

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

Distributive Justice and Welfarism in Utilitarianism.Jörg Schroth - 2008 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 51 (2):123-146.
Desert as fit: An axiomatic analysis.Gustaf Arrhenius - 2006 - In Kris McDaniel, Jason R. Raibley, Richard Feldman & Michael E. Zimmerman (eds.), The Good, the Right, Life And Death: Essays in Honor of Fred Feldman. Aldershot: Ashgate Pub Co. pp. 3-17.
The impotence of the demandingness objection.David Sobel - 2007 - Philosophers' Imprint 7:1-17.
The Origins of the Objection.Steven Sverdlik - 2012 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 29 (1):79-101.
Readjusting Utility for Justice.Dennis R. Cooley - 2000 - Journal of Philosophical Research 25:363-380.
Can an act-consequentialist theory be agent relative?Douglas Portmore - 2001 - American Philosophical Quarterly 38 (4):363-77.


Added to PP

122 (#134,423)

6 months
11 (#126,745)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Simon Wigley
Bilkent University

Citations of this work

Rule-Consequentialism's Assumptions.Kevin P. Tobia - 2018 - Utilitas 30 (4):458-471.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Equality or Priority?Derek Parfit - 2002 - In Matthew Clayton & Andrew Williams (eds.), The Ideal of Equality. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 81-125.
Consequences of consequentialism.David Sosa - 1993 - Mind 102 (405):101-122.
t6. Desert: Reconsideration of Some Received Wisdom.Fred Feldman - 1995 - In Louis P. Pojman & Owen McLeod (eds.), What Do We Deserve?: A Reader on Justice and Desert. Oxford University Press. pp. 140.

View all 7 references / Add more references