Ethical Consequentialism

BY TIM MULGAN

INTRODUCTION

Consequentialism ties moral evaluation to the value of consequences or outcomes. In contemporary moralphilosophy, consequentialism is typically contrasted with deontology and virtue ethics. Differentconsequentialists offer different accounts of value, but all give a prominent place to the promotion of humanwell-being. Consequentialism can evaluate acts, rules, motives, or political institutions. This entry focuses oncontemporary consequentialism, but also explores its roots in classical utilitarianism.

GENERAL OVERVIEWS

There are a number of good overviews of consequentialism. Sinnott-Armstrong 2008 offers a balanced andsympathetic introduction to the main themes of contemporary consequentialism. A regularly updated onlineresource, this is likely to remain the best place to begin. Pettit 1991 and Goodin 1991 together provide anauthoritative, if very brief, introduction. Pettit 1997 offers a more systematic interpretation of theconsequentialist perspective. Pettits Reply to Baron and Stote in the same volume sets out the consequentialistresponse to the competing accounts offered by Kantians and virtue theorists. Part 1 of Parfit 1984, the mostinfluential recent consequentialist work, introduces the different forms of consequentialism. The rest of the bookintroduces many of the dominant themes of recent debate. Smart 1973 and Williams 1973 represent a classicdebate between a defender of straightforward act consequentialism and one of its most penetrating recentcritics.

Goodin, Robert. Utility and the Good. In A Companion to Ethics. Edited by Peter Singer,241248. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.

Brief outline of the standard accounts of value, focusing on utilitarianism. Argues that the utility principle isa sound basis for public rather than private choice. Together with Pettit 1991, an ideal brief introduction.

Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.The seminal text in late-twentieth-century consequentialist literature. Crisply written, with an abundanceof provocative thought experiments and ingenious arguments. Part 1 outlines the different forms ofconsequentialism, focusing especially on the contrast between individual and collective. Other partsexplore rationality and time, personal identity, and future people, providing the background forsubsequent debates.

Oxford Bibliographies Online - Ethical Consequentialism http://www.oxfordbibliographiesonline.com.avoserv.library.fordham.edu/...

1 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

Pettit, Philip. Consequentialism. In A Companion to Ethics. Edited by Peter Singer, 230240.Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.

Brief outline, including main arguments for and against consequentialism. Introduces the now-standarddistinction between promoting and honoring value. Together with Goodin 1991, an ideal briefintroduction.

Pettit, Philip. The Consequentialist Perspective. In Three Methods of Ethics. By Baron, Marcia,Philip Pettit, and Michael Slote, 92174. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.

Systematic presentation of consequentialism, focusing on moral psychology and the question of rightness.Responds to many familiar objections by sketching a consequentialist moral psychology. Ideal advancedintroduction.

Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. Consequentialism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Edited by Edward N. Zalta, 2008.

A balanced, insightful, accessible overview of contemporary consequentialism, written by a sympatheticcritic. Updated regularly, and thus likely to remain the best first port of call for both students and scholars.

Smart, J. J. C. An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics. In Utilitarianism: For and Against.Edited byJ. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams, 374. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,1973.

Clear defense of act utilitarianism. Superseded by subsequent debate in many details, but still a usefulintroduction to the consequentialist worldview. The context for the critique in Williams 1973. Readtogether, the two offer a good taste of the issues that have traditionally divided consequentialists and theiropponents.

Williams, Bernard. A Critique of Utilitarianism. In Utilitarianism: For and Against. By J. J. C.Smart and Bernard Williams, 77150. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Highly influential critique of utilitarianism, and especially impartial consequentialism. Introduces theintegrity objection that utilitarianism is inconsistent with genuine personal commitments. Engaging andforceful style. Although Williamss arguments have been developed more clearly and systematically byothers, there is still much to be gained by reading them in the original.

TEXTBOOKS

Most introductory textbooks in moral or political philosophy discuss consequentialism and/or classicalutilitarianism. Some texts focus on consequentialism. Shaw 1999 is a very readable and reliable introduction toethics, giving utilitarianism a central place. Singer 1993 is a provocative utilitarian introduction to appliedethics. Mulgan 2007 emphasizes the continuity between classical utilitarianism and contemporaryconsequentialism. All three are suitable for introductory classes or the general reader. Baron, et al. 1997 offers


2 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

first-person introductions to the three main contemporary strands in normative ethics and is suitable for seniorundergraduates and above. While too self-contained to serve as a class text, Kagan 1998 offers a distinctiveperspective on contemporary normative ethics. Textbooks focusing on classical utilitarianism or politicalphilosophy are discussed in Secondary Texts and Consequentialist Political Theory.

Baron, Marcia, Philip Pettit, and Michael Slote. Three Methods of Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.Three main strands in contemporary normative ethicsKantian ethics, consequentialism, and virtueethicsare each represented by a leading exponent. Detailed exposition of each view, followed by repliesfrom each contributor. Captures the flavor of the current debate. Ideal senior undergraduate text.

Kagan, Shelly. Normative Ethics. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1998.From the Westview Dimensions of Philosophy series. Broadly consequentialist account of contemporarynormative ethics. Does not engage other literature enough for a course text, but full of original argumentsand perspectives.

Mulgan, Tim. Understanding Utilitarianism. Stocksfield, UK: Acumen, 2007.Treats utilitarianism as a living tradition in moral philosophy, emphasizing continuities and differencesbetween classical utilitarianism and contemporary consequentialism. Aimed at introductory classes andthe general reader.

Shaw, William. Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism. Malden, MA: Blackwell,1999.

Readable and reliable introductory textbook. Primary focus on utilitarianism, but also discusses othercontemporary approaches. Very good discussions of the case for utilitarianism (chapter 3) and theobjections to it (chapter 4).

Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. 2d ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993.Partisan but highly readable introduction, written from an act utilitarian perspective. Excellent coverage ofissues: animals, abortion, euthanasia, famine relief. Ideal provocative introductory text.

ANTHOLOGIES

There are a number of good anthologies devoted to consequentialism. Darwall 2003 is a superb collection ofseminal works in classical utilitarianism and contemporary consequentialism. Sen and Williams 1982 andScheffler 1988 are two influential collections of articles. Dancy 1997 is an ideal companion to Parfits Reasonsand Persons (Parfit 1984, cited under General Overviews), the seminal contemporary consequentialist text. Dueto increased research specialization, the best recent anthologies typically deal with more specific topics and arethus discussed in separate sections.

Dancy, Jonathan, ed. Reading Parfit. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.


3 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

Essays by leading philosophers on Parfits Reasons and Persons (Parfit 1984, cited under GeneralOverviews). Concentrates on the first three parts of the book, excluding the material on future people inPart 4. An excellent accompaniment to Parfits original text, and thus to contemporary consequentialism.Suitable background reading for senior undergraduates and above.

Darwall, Stephen, ed. Consequentialism. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003.Collection of articles or excerpts from classical utilitarians (Bentham, Mill, Sidgwick, Moore), contemporaryconsequentialists (Pettit, Scheffler, Parfit, Railton, Harsanyi, Brandt, Adams), and critics (Rawls, Sen). Veryjudiciously selected, with a brief but informative introduction by the editor.

Scheffler, Samuel, ed. Consequentialism and Its Critics. Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1988.

Collection of classic contemporary readings by leading consequentialists and opponents: Rawls, Williams,Nagel, Scanlon, Railton, Nozick, Parfit, Sen, Foot, Scheffler. Ideal background to current debate.

Sen, Amartya, and Bernard Williams, eds. Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1982.

Collection of articles by leading consequentialists and opponents. Especially notable for classic criticalpapers by Scanlon, Taylor, and Rawls; and for reprinting two earlier defenses of consequentialism by Hareand Harsanyi. Ideal background to current debate.

CLASSICAL UTILITARIANISM

Contemporary consequentialism has its roots in the utilitarian tradition developed in Britain in the 18th and19th centuries, and especially in the classical utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and HenrySidgwick.

Primary Texts

Two early examples are the theological utilitarianism of Paley 2002 and the radical impartial utilitarianism ofGodwin 1971. Bentham 1996 is the most accessible work by the founder of classical utilitarianism. Mill 1998and Mill 1974 are two classic statements of utilitarianism and liberalism. Both are written for a popularaudience, and ideal for beginners. Mill 1994 and Mill 1973 are more sophisticated discussions of Mills politicaland philosophical views. Sidgwick 1981 is often regarded as the most philosophically sophisticated statementof classical utilitarianism, and sets the scene for contemporary consequentialism. It is a difficult read, but wellworth the effort.

Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Edited by J. Burnsand H. L. A. Hart. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.

Written in 1789. The best published introduction to Bentham, who wrote a huge amount but publishedlittle Defends the utility (or greatest happiness) principle and hedonism Not an easy read but a


4 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

fascinating insight into a very original thinker.

Godwin, William. Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. Abridged and edited by K. Codell Carter.Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.

Provocative defense of a completely impartial utilitarianism, with no place for special obligations.Introduces the infamous example of the archbishop and the chambermaid. Worth reading for thoseinterested in the historical development of classical utilitarianism. First published 1793. This is a reprintof the third edition of 1798.

Mill, John Stuart. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive. Edited by J. M. Robson. Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 1973.

Mills most comprehensive philosophical work. Discusses proper names, induction, fallacies, and the logicof the moral sciences. Less accessible to modern readers than his essays, and often neglected, butessential reading for anyone wanting to understand Mills utilitarianism in its philosophical context. Firstpublished 1843. Reprint of 8th edition of 1872.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Edited by Gertrude Himmelfarb. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin,1974.

Probably the most influential work by a utilitarian. Written together with Mill 1998, for the same popularaudience. Hugely influential popular defense of liberalism. The relationship between Mills liberalism andhis utilitarianism is unclear, and the subject of huge subsequent controversy. First published 1793.

Mill, John Stuart. Principles of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.Mills influential views on economics. Less accessible than Mills essays on liberty and utilitarianism, andsuperseded by subsequent technical developments, but still an excellent insight into utilitarian politicaleconomy. First published in 1848. Reprint of the 7th edition of 1871, with introduction and notes byJonathan Riley.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Edited by Roger Crisp. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.The best introduction to classical utilitarianism for students or general readers. Inevitably glosses overmany complexities and is much more convincing when seen in the context of Mills overall philosophicalproject. Originally published in 1861. Crisps edition has a philosophical introduction, thorough notes,and an extended bibliography.

Paley, William. The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund,2002.

Presents utilitarianism as the best way to determine the will of God. While radical on some issues, such ashis opposition to slavery, Paley is generally conservative, especially regarding property. Worth reading to


5 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

correct the impression that utilitarianism was always radical and antireligious. First published 1786.

Sidgwick, Henry. The Methods of Ethics. 7th ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1981.The most philosophically sophisticated classical utilitarian work. Prefigures many themes of contemporaryconsequentialism. A long, sometimes dense read, but an essential resource for anyone interested inconsequentialism. First published in 1874. The 7th edition of 1907, reprinted with a brief forward by JohnRawls.

Secondary Texts

Mulgan 2007 offers a concise overview of classical utilitarianism, highlighting its relevance to contemporaryconsequentialism. Crisp 1997 is a reliable guide through the text of Mills Utilitarianism and introduces manycontemporary consequentialist controversies. For those seeking more advanced discussion of Mill, Skorupski1998 is a collection of authoritative essays on diverse aspects of Mills philosophy, and West 2006 provides avariety of perspectives on Mills utilitarianism. Secondary literature on other figures is often less accessible.Rosen 2003 offers a very detailed account of the emergence of classical utilitarianism. Schofield 2006 makesthe latest scholarship on Bentham accessible to contemporary philosophers. Schneewind 1977 remains the bestintroduction to Sidgwicks moral philosophy. Schultz 2004 is an excellent intellectual biography, and anespecially good antidote to the usual caricature of Sidgwick as a dry Victorian.

Crisp, Roger. Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge, 1997.In the Routledge Philosophy Guidebook series. Combines detailed exegesis of Mills essay Utilitarianismwith up-to-date discussion of well-being, the scope of consequentialism, and Williamss integrityobjection. Ideal background for students studying Mill in the context of contemporary moral theory.

Mulgan, Tim. Classical Utilitarianism. In Understanding Utilitarianism. By Tim Mulgan, 7-44.Stocksfield, UK: Acumen, 2007.

Overview of classical utilitarianism, drawing out connections with contemporary consequentialism. CoversBentham, Mill, and Sidgwick together with their predecessors. Written for introductory classes or thegeneral reader.

Rosen, Frederick. Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. London: Routledge, 2003.Explores the development of classical utilitarianism, taking in Smith, Helvetius, Paley, and Bentham.Highlights places where classical utilitarianism avoids familiar objections to contemporaryconsequentialism. A useful corrective to the parochialism of current debates.

Schneewind, J. Sidgwick and Victorian Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.Detailed examination of Sidgwicks Methods of Ethics (Sidgwick 1981, cited under Primary Texts), and itshistorical context. One of the first full-length discussions of Sidgwick, and still an essential introductionfor both senior students and scholars.


6 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

Schofield, Philip. Utility and Democracy: The Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2006.

Historical exploration of Benthams views of utilitarianism and democracy, and especially the emergence ofthe notion of sinister interest. Draws on the research of the Bentham Project to present a nuanced pictureof the evolution of Benthams thought.

Schultz, Bart. Henry Sidgwick, Eye of the Universe: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press, 2004.

[DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511498336]

One of the best philosophical biographies. Written by a philosopher, who places Sidgwicks intellectualdevelopment in the context of his life and times. A wonderful insight into the relation between abstractthought and political engagement. Chapter 4 also stands alone as a philosophical commentary onSidgwicks Methods of Ethics (Sidgwick 1981, cited under Primary Texts).

Skorupski, John. The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,1998.

[DOI: 10.1017/CCOL0521419875]

Readable and comprehensive collection of expert essays on the main aspect of Mills philosophy. The bestsingle volume multiauthor resource on Mill. Ideal background for readers at all levels.

West, Henry. The Blackwell Guide to Mills Utilitarianism. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006.[DOI: 10.1002/9780470776483]

Combines the full text of Mills Utilitarianism with new essays by leading figures on the text itself, itsbackground, and its influence. Probably too detailed to be a set text for an introductory course, but anexcellent resource for anyone studying Mill.

ARGUMENTS FOR CONSEQUENTIALISM

The literature on consequentialism is dominated by objections to consequentialism, and subsequentconsequentialist replies. Positive arguments for consequentialism often play a secondary role. However,consequentialists have offered many positive arguments. The most famous is Mills notorious proof ofutilitarianism, offered in chapter 4 of Mill 1998. Sidgwick 1981 offers a more cautious defense of classicalutilitarianism. Bennett 1966 is an influential early defense of consequentialism against various theories thatdiscount the significance for moral evaluation of the consequences of actions. Hare 1981 is a courageousattempt to derive utilitarianism entirely from the analysis of moral terms. Parfit 1984 introduces a variety ofarguments that have subsequently been deployed in support of consequentialism. Scheffler 1988 presents aninfluential argument that nonconsequentialism is self-defeating. Hooker 2000 uses Rawlss reflectiveequilibrium method to argue in favor of rule consequentialism.

Bennett Jonathan Whatever the Consequences Analysis 26 3 (1966): 83102


7 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

[DOI: 10.2307/3326287]

Influential early defense of consequentialism. Argues against the principle that it is never wrong to kill aninnocent person, by undermining the distinction between actions and their consequences.

Hare, R. M. Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.Ambitious attempt to derive a specific utilitarian normative theory from an analysis of the meaning ofmoral terms. One of the high points of ordinary language philosophy. Although largely of historicalinterest, still worth reading as a classic example of one recently influential style of moral philosophy.

Hooker, Brad. Introduction. In Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory ofMorality. By ">Brad Hooker, 1-30. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, chapter 1, , pp..Appropriates Rawlss reflective equilibrium methodology to defend rule consequentialism. One of theclearest arguments that consequentialism provides the best fit with commonsense morality.

Mill, John Stuart. Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible. In Utilitarianism.By John Stuart Mill. Edited by Roger Crisp, 8186. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Mills notorious proof of utilitarianism. Often taken out of context and treated as a series of logical errors.Best seen instead in the context of Mills empiricist philosophy, and especially his lack of ourcontemporary obsession with moral skepticism or relativism.

Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.While not explicitly presented as such, Parfits influential discussions of temporal impartiality,reductionism about personal identity, and our obligations to future people can all be read as argumentsfor a broadly consequentialist moral outlookand they have been subsequently deployed as such. SeeParts 24.

Scheffler, Samuel. Introduction. In Consequentialism and its Critics. Edited by Samuel Scheffler,113. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Argues that nonconsequentialism is self-defeating. Similar arguments are expanded in two other articlesin the same collection: Schefflers own Agent-Centered Restrictions, Rationality, and the Virtues(reprinted in Scheffler 2003, cited under Hybrid Views, Agent-Neutrality, and Agent-Relativity) and ParfitsIs Common-sense Morality Self-Defeating? (Reprinted from Journal of Philosophy 76.10 (1979):533545).

Sidgwick, Henry. The Methods of Ethics. 7th ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1981.Careful, sophisticated defense of philosophical utilitarianism against 19th-century intuitionism. Influencedlate-20th-century moral philosophical methodology, especially via the work of John Rawls. See, especially,Book 1, chapter 8 (Intuitionism), Book 4, chapter 4, section 1; and Book 4, chapter 5, sections 13 (both


8 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

titled The Method of Utilitarianism).

WHAT IS VALUABLE?

Consequentialists link morality to the promotion of value. The question of what is valuable is thus central toconsequentialist thought. Two issues dominate the contemporary literature: the analysis of human well-being,and relationship between the overall value of an outcome and the values of the individuals lives it contains.

Human Well-Being

All consequentialists regard human well-being as a central value. Indeed, given the influence of utilitarianism,consequentialists often treat human well-being as the sole value. Crisp 2008 is a good up-to-date introduction.Parfit 1984 is the standard taxonomy. Crisp 1997 is a very clear exposition of Mills hedonism, and a goodintroduction to contemporary issues. Griffin 1986 is a classic discussion. His complex account blends elementsof several different theories. Hurka 1993 blends consequentialism with Aristotlelinking human well-being tothe development of essential human capabilities. Railton 2003 defends a naturalistic version of the ideal-desiretheory. Feldman 2004 defends a sophisticated form of hedonism. Together, these last four provide an excellentoverview of the current debate.

Crisp, Roger. Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge, 1997.Uses Mills hedonismand especially his distinction between higher and lower pleasuresas thespringboard for a discussion of late-twentieth-century consequentialist debates about well-being. Idealfor undergraduate courses. See chapters 23.

Crisp, Roger. Well-Being. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N.Zalta. 2008.

Overview of recent debates, including critiques of the concept of well-being from Moore to Scanlon. Aregularly updated online resource, and thus a good place to look for new developments.

Feldman, Fred. Pleasure and the Good Life: Concerning the Nature, Varieties, and the Plausibilityof Hedonism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.Defends a sophisticated hedonism against a wide range of historical and contemporary objections.Introduces the distinction between sensory and attitudinal forms of hedonism, and argues that the latter isespecially worthy of exploration. Ideal introduction to the current debate for senior undergraduates andabove.

Griffin, James. Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1986.

A distinctive account of well-being, drawing together pleasure, desire, and objective value. Influentialdiscussions of the boundary between mental state, desire, and objective accounts (in Part 1), and ofincommensurability (in chapter 5) Sets the scene for subsequent debate and still a very good introduction


9 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

to its methods and preoccupations.

Hurka, Thomas. Perfectionism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.Defends a distinctive account of well-being, based on the development of human nature. Combinescontemporary analytic rigor with historical ideas, notably drawn from Aristotle and the British Idealists.Ideal for senior undergraduates and above.

Parfit, Derek. What Makes Someones Life Go Best. In Reasons and Persons. By DerekParfit,493-502. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Brief accessible taxonomy of possible accounts of well-being. Introduces the now standard tripartitedistinction between hedonism, preference theory, and objective list theory. Ideal as set reading forintroductory classes.

Railton, Peter. Facts and Values. In Facts, Values, and Norms: Essays toward a Morality ofConsequence. By Peter Railton, 531. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.[DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511613982]

Defends an ideal advisor theory of well-beinga version of the informed-desire accountsituated withina naturalist moral realism. This, along with the other essays in Railtons collection, present a very goodintroduction to the naturalist strand of contemporary consequentialism. Originally published inPhilosophical Topics 14 (1986): 531.

Aggregation and Distribution

A consequentialist theory of aggregation relates the well-being of individuals to the value of outcomes. Parfit1984 is the seminal discussion, contrasting total and average utilitarianism, and presenting seemingly decisiveobjections to both. Parfit 1986 is a more elaborate argument for the same conclusions. Both are essentialreading. The organizing problem in contemporary debate is Parfits repugnant conclusion, developed in Parfit1984 and Parfit 1986; Ryberg and Tannsjo 2004 is an excellent collection that brings out the array of topics thatcan be seen through the lens of this puzzle. Broome 2004 is a robust defense of total utilitarianism. Hurka 1983explores a range of positions intermediate between average and total views. Arhhenius 2000 covers more recentintermediate positions, arguing that it is impossible to construct a theory that resolves all of Parfits puzzles.Temkin 1987 uses puzzles drawn from Parfit 1984 to argue against the transitivity of comparative judgments ofvalue. Another aggregative question is whether consequentialists should be concerned about how well-being isdistributed. The most influential discussion here is Parfit 1997, which introduces the key distinction betweenprioritarians and egalitarians.

Arhhenius, Gustaf. An Impossibility Theorem for Welfarist Axiologies. Economics & Philosophy16 (2000): 247266.

[DOI: 10.1017/S0266267100000249]

Argues that it is impossible to find Parfits Theory X, an intuitively plausible account of value (Parfit


10 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

1984). A very good introduction to the literature both on impossibility theorems and on intermediatepositions between average and total utilitarianism.

Broome, John. Weighing Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.[DOI: 10.1093/019924376X.001.0001]

Defends total utilitarian aggregation, using conclusions and methods from economics. Includes conciseand authoritative discussions of separability, incommensurability, and the role of intuitions in moraltheory. Some technical material will be challenging for readers unfamiliar with economic reasoning, but thephilosophical discussion is admirably clear. Excellent graduate text.

Hurka, Thomas. Value and Population Size. Ethics 93 (1983): 496507.[DOI: 10.1086/292462]

Comparatively early discussion of theories distinct from both total and average utilitarianism. While laterliterature has introduced a vast array of technical distinctions, this remains one of the best presentations ofthe moral judgments underlying possible responses. (For later developments, see Arhhenius 2000.)

Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.The starting point for all subsequent discussion of aggregation. Introduces the repugnant conclusion,absurd conclusion, and mere addition paradox. Essential reading for anyone working in the area, and stillone of the best resources to give to first-year undergraduates. See especially Part 4.

Parfit, Derek. Overpopulation and the Quality of Life. In Applied Ethics. Edited by Peter Singer,145164. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Extends Parfits discussion of his repugnant conclusion and mere addition paradox (Parfit 1984), offeringa new argument for the latter. Usually cited as the standard presentation of these puzzles. Stands alone,but best read in conjunction with Parfit 1984.

Parfit, Derek. Equality and Priority. Ratio 10 (1997): 202221.[DOI: 10.1111/1467-9329.00041]

Argues that, while pure egalitarianism is implausible, it is reasonable to give priority to the worst off.Classic defense of what is now the standard view on the role of equality in aggregating welfare, at leastwithin consequentialist circles.

Ryberg, Jesper, and Torbjorn Tannsjo, eds. The Repugnant Conclusion: Essays on PopulationEthics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2004.Very focused collection of essays by leading scholars on Parfits repugnant conclusion, developed in Parfit1984 and Parfit 1986. Ideal introduction to the organizing problems of contemporary consequentialistdiscussion of aggregation. Includes a reprint of Parfit 1986.


11 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

Temkin, Larry. Intransitivity and the Mere Addition Paradox. Philosophy and Public Affairs 16(1987): 138187.

Argues that Parfits mere addition paradox, developed in Parfit 1984 and Parfit 1986, has the radicalimplication that our judgments of comparative value are intransitive, thus rejecting a common assumption.(Best read in conjunction with Broome 2004, which defends transitivity.)

FORMS OF CONSEQUENTIALISM

Standard consequentialism evaluates individual acts in terms of their consequences. One perennial alternative isrule consequentialism, where the right acts are those that follow from the rules with the best consequences (seeRule Consequentialism). In recent years, abstracting from the traditional debate between act and ruleconsequentialism, consequentialists have explored a wide range of alternative evaluative foci: motives, virtues,decision procedures, and institutions. Parfit 1984 outlines the broad differences between individual andcollective forms of consequentialism. Bales 1971 distinguishes a moral theorys criterion of rightness from itsdecision-procedure, while Griffin 1994 argues that the two cannot be so easily separated. Adams 1976introduces direct evaluation of motives in terms of their consequences. Hurka 2001 responds to the recent riseof virtue ethics with a consequentialist account of virtues or character traits. Pettit and Smith 2000 explores thepossibility of combining direct evaluations of different foci. Feldman 1986 and Carlson 1995 each address arange of technical issues in the formulation of consequentialism.

Adams, Robert. Motive Utilitarianism. Journal of Philosophy 73 (1976): 467481.[DOI: 10.2307/2025783]

Introduces direct utilitarian evaluation of motives, rather than acts or rules. First step in the contemporaryexploration of alternative forms of consequentialism. Often cited, and sets the scene for subsequentdebate.

Bales, Eugene. Act-Utilitarianism: Account of Right-Making Characteristics or Decision-MakingProcedure? American Philosophical Quarterly 8 (1971): 257265.Classic defense of the claim that the distinction between criterion of rightness and decision procedure canhelp utilitarianism avoid familiar objections, especially those based on impracticality. Still worth reading asa clear introduction to an important issue.

Carlson, Eric. Consequentialism Reconsidered. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic,1995.

Technical discussion of various structural issues in consequentialist theory, such as outcomes,performability, alternatives, and the debate between actualism and possibilism. Too advanced forbeginners. Very suitable introduction to formal methods in ethics for graduate students and above.

Feldman, Fred. Doing the Best We Can: An Essay in Informal Deontic Logic. Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: D. Reidel, 1986.


12 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

Uses techniques from formal logic to shed light on issues in moral discourse, within a broadlyconsequentialist approach. Very good illustration of the relevance of deontic logic for moral philosophy.Too advanced for beginners or casual readers, but ideal for graduate students and above.

Griffin, James. The Distinction between Criterion and Decision Procedure: A Reply to MadisonPowers. Utilitas 6 (1994): 177182.[DOI: 10.1017/S0953820800001552]

Argues that the distinction between criterion and decision procedure cannot do all the work that someconsequentialists want because there are limits on the divergence between the two. A good critique of theargument advanced in Bales 1971.

Hurka, Thomas. Virtue, Vice, and Value. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.[DOI: 10.1093/0195137167.001.0001]

Develops a recursive consequentialist account of virtue and vice. Combines contemporary analytictechniques with ideas from the golden age of moral theory from Sidgwick to Ross. An ideal text for agraduate or senior undergraduate course in moral theory, especially for students with disparatephilosophical interests or backgrounds.

Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.Influential discussion of the different forms of consequentialism, especially the similarities and differencesbetween individual and collective modes of evaluation. Introduces the idea that a moral theory might beeither individually or collectively self-defeating. See especially Part 1.

Pettit, Philip, and Michael Smith. Global Consequentialism. In Morality, Rules, andConsequences. Edited by Brad Hooker, Elinor Mason, and Dale E. Miller, 121133. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

Argues that consequentialists should directly evaluate each different category (act, rule, motive, etc.) interms of its consequences, rather than privileging one category and evaluating others in terms of it.Together with Kagans article Evaluative Focal Points in the same volume (pp. 134155), this introduces anew level of abstraction.

RULE CONSEQUENTIALISM

Rule consequentialism evaluates codes of rules: the ideal code is that whose acceptance by everyone wouldproduce the best consequences. Hooker 2004, a regularly updated online resource, is an accessible introductionto current debate. Urmson 1953 introduced rule consequentialism into the modern debate by attributing it to J.S. Mill. The essays collected in Brandt 1992 are the best introduction to the first wave of contemporary ruleconsequentialism, from 1965 to 1988. Harsanyi 1977 is worth reading for its argument that ruleconsequentialism diverges from act consequentialism, and also for its application of decision theory to moral


13 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

reasoning. Hooker 2000 is the leading contemporary defense, including very good discussion of standardobjections to the view. Mulgan 2001 presents a range of new objections to Hookers rule consequentialism.Murphy 2000 and Woodard 2008 present new theories at the boundary between act and rule consequentialism.

Brandt, Richard. Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1992.

Influential essays from a prominent defender of rule consequentialism. Includes Some Merits of One Formof Rule-Utilitarianism (1967), Fairness to Indirect Optimific Theories in Ethics (1988), andUtilitarianism and Moral Rights (1984). Also offers Brandts views on the relationship betweenutilitarianism and metaethics, and on the implications of utilitarianism.

Harsanyi, John. Rule Utilitarianism and Decision Theory. Erkenntnis 11.1 (1977): 2753.Applies decision theory to the analysis and evaluation of utilitarianism. Defends rule utilitarianism, usingeconomic reasoning to argue that it is not coextensive with act utilitarianism. Very good introduction toearlier literature on rule utilitarianism, and to the resources that decision theory might offer to moralphilosophy.

Hooker, Brad. Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2000.

The leading contemporary defense of rule consequentialism. Responds to traditional objections anddiscusses applied issues, notably famine relief and euthanasia. Concise and clear, this is the starting pointfor recent debate. A good text for senior undergraduate or graduate courses in recent moral theory.

Hooker, Brad. Rule Consequentialism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited byEdward N. Zalta. 2004.

Balanced account of rule consequentialism, both historical and contemporary. Written by the views leadingcontemporary exponent. Up-to-date, and likely to remain so. The best place to look for the latestdevelopments.

Mulgan, Tim. Rule Consequentialism. In The Demands of Consequentialism. By Tim Mulgan,53103. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Sustained critique of Hookers formulation of rule consequentialism (see Hooker 2000). Presents a numberof new objections, as well as explaining old objections.

Murphy, Liam. Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Defends a cooperative conception of beneficence, ruling out any principle where demands increase underpartial compliance. A difficult, complex book. Suitable for graduate students and above.

Urmson, J. O. The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J. S. Mill. Philosophical Quarterly 3


14 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

(1953): 3339.

[DOI: 10.2307/2216697]

Defends a rule utilitarian interpretation of Mills essay Utilitarianism. This article reintroduced ruleconsequentialism into moral philosophy. Brief, clear, and to the point. Influential precursor to both recentMill scholarship and recent rule consequentialism.

Woodard, Christopher. Reasons, Patterns, and Cooperation. New York: Routledge, 2008.Distinguishes between act-based and patterns-based reasons. Argues that pattern-based reasons ariseeven where no one else is cooperating and the favored pattern stands no chance of being realized.Innovative new approach on the boundary between act and rule consequentialism, with original criticismsof Hooker 2000, Murphy 2000, and Mulgan 2001.

HYBRID VIEWS, AGENT-NEUTRALITY, AND AGENT-RELATIVITY

Sidgwick famously contrasted the agents own point of view with the point of view of the universe. Some arguethat consequentialism must always evaluate outcomes impartially, while others allow the agent to give specialprominence to her own interests, perspective, or values. Scheffler 2003 defends a hybrid moral theory allowingagents either to maximize impartial good or to give disproportionate weight to their own interests. Mulgan 2001defends a more complex combined consequentialism, uniting act and rule consequentialism within theframework of Schefflers hybrid view. There is also a lively general debate over the inclusion of agent-relativevalues in consequentialism. Sen 1983 is an early exploration of the possibility of combining consequentialismand agent-relative evaluation. Nagel 1972 explores the contrast between personal and impersonal perspectives.Although Nagel is not explicitly a consequentialist, his ideas have especially influenced consequentialists.McNaughton and Rawling 1991 argues that agent-relativity favors deontology against consequentialism.Portmore 2003 is an up-to-date discussion of the general prospects for these hybrid forms ofconsequentialism.

McNaughton, David, and Piers Rawling. Agent-Relativity and the Doing-Happening Distinction.Philosophical Studies 63.2 (1991): 167185.[DOI: 10.1007/BF00381686]

Detailed analysis of the distinction between agent-relative and agent-neutral, and its connection to theconsequentialism/deontology debate. A good introduction to the debate.

Mulgan, Tim. The Demands of Consequentialism. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.Develops a combined consequentialism, bringing together act and rule consequentialism under theframework of the hybrid view of Scheffler 2003. Argues that combined consequentialism is moreintuitively appealing that its rivals.

Nagel, Thomas. The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972.Argues that all reasons for action are objective and derives moral principles from altruism Regards ethics


15 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

as a branch of psychology, and ethical requirements as rational requirements. Nagels views have beenvery influential, not least because he taught many of the next generation of moral philosophers. Seeespecially chapters 7 and 10.

Portmore, Douglas. Position-Relative Consequentialism, Agent-Centered Options, andSupererogation. Ethics 113 (2003): 303332.Presents position-relative consequentialism, where agents ought always to bring about the best availablestate of affairs as judged from their own individual position. Argues that this view best accommodatescommonsense intuitions about moral options. Excellent introduction to the recent debate.

Scheffler, Samuel. The Rejection of Consequentialism. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003.Defends a hybrid moral theory, combining consequentialism with an agent-centered prerogative allowingdisproportionate weight for the agents values. Originally published in 1982. Reprint of the revised editionof 1993. Includes three later articles, notably Prerogatives without Restrictions and Agent-CenteredRestrictions, Rationality, and the Virtues. Influential new form of consequentialism.

Sen, Amartya. Evaluator Relativity and Consequential Evaluation. Philosophy and Public Affairs12.2 (1983): 113132.

Responds to a critique by Donald Regan of Sens Rights and Agency (Philosophy and Public Affairs 11.1[1982]: 339). Systematic account of the possibility of, and motivation for, evaluator-relative judgments. Aclassic paper that sets the scene for subsequent debate.

OBJECTIONS TO CONSEQUENTIALISM

The literature on consequentialism is dominated by objections to consequentialism, and by subsequentconsequentialist replies. Three objections have been especially prominent in recent debate: thatconsequentialism is impractical, that it undermines the integrity of moral agents, and that it is unreasonablydemanding.

Impracticality

Consequentialism seems impractical, as moral evaluation depends on empirical factors that are impossible tocalculate, and may have no determinate answer. Mackie 1983 argues that utilitarianism is an ethic of fantasy.Lenman 2000 is a very good extended argument for the same conclusion. Griffin 1992 and Sobel 1994 arguethat consequentialism places impossible epistemic demands on its account of well-being. Griffin 1994 offers apowerful argument that consequentialism can make its epistemic requirements more palatable by invoking adistinction between criterion of rightness and decision-procedure. On the other side, Feldman 2006 questionsthe conventional wisdom that consequentialism can rebut the impracticality objection by invoking expectedutilities or shifting to decision-procedures.

Feldman, Fred. Actual Utility, the Objection from Impracticality, and the Move to Expected


16 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

Utility. Philosophical Studies 129 (2006): 149179.Argues that neither the shift from actual consequences to expected value, nor the introduction of decision-procedures, can help consequentialism to rebut the practicality objection. Admirably clear critique of apresumption that is very common in the current literature.

Griffin, James. The Human Good and the Ambitions of Consequentialism. Social Philosophy andPolicy 9.2 (1992): 118132.[DOI: 10.1017/S0265052500001436]

Argues that, once we admit other values in addition to human well-being, it is hard to make sense ofconsequentialism. Presents several examples of goods where promotion makes little sense, such asacting morally and keeping promises. Good introduction to some important worries about the coherenceof consequentialism.

Griffin, James. The Distinction between Criterion and Decision Procedure: A Reply to MadisonPowers. Utilitas 6 (1994): 177182.[DOI: 10.1017/S0953820800001552]

Argues that the distinction between criterion and decision procedure cannot do all the work that someconsequentialists want because there are limits on the divergence between the two. Cast as a defense ofhis account of well-being, but perhaps the best introduction to Griffins influential work on this issue.

Lenman, James. Consequentialism and Cluelessness. Philosophy and Public Affairs 29.4(2000): 342370.

[DOI: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00342.x]

Forceful presentation of the epistemic argument that consequentialism cannot be the correct moral theorybecause we can never know all the consequences of our actions. Excellent examples, and a goodintroduction to the debate.

Mackie, J. L. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1983.Argues that, because of its informational demands, utilitarianism is an ethic of fantasy. Clear, if rathersimplistic, presentation of a standard objection. Ideal introduction for those seeking a taste of the issues.See chapter 4, section 2.

Sobel, David. Full Information Accounts of Well-Being. Ethics 104.4 (1994): 784810.[DOI: 10.1086/293655]

Argues that individual well-being cannot be determined and commensurated. Focuses on full informationaccounts, where an individuals well-being is identified with what she would prefer from some privilegedepistemic standpoint. Critical discussion of a key consequentialist assumption.


17 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

Integrity

Many opponents of consequentialism object that agents cannot be required to view the world entirely from animpartial perspective. Williams 1973 objects that consequentialism undermines the agents integrity byrequiring her to view her own projects merely as just another input to the impersonal utilitarian calculus. Brink1986 develops a similar objection based on the importance of the personal point of view. Railton 1984 is acareful examination of the related charge that consequentialism alienates agents from their projects. Crisp 1997is a readable account of the main issues. The integrity objection is often linked to the demandingness objection.Railton 1984 is especially good on these connections. However, the two objections have generated their ownliteratures, and are thus discussed separately here. Another similar objection is Rawlss charge thatutilitarianism ignores the separateness of persons. However, this objection primarily relates to politicalphilosophy, another topic discussed in a separate section. Many nonstandard forms of consequentialism,notably hybrid views and rule consequentialism, are defended on the grounds that they avoid these twoobjections. So the works cited under these other topics often discuss integrity and demandingness.

Brink, David. Utilitarian Morality and the Personal Point of View. Journal of Philosophy 83(1986): 417438.

[DOI: 10.2307/2026328]

Develops an objection to consequentialism that is akin to the integrity objection of Williams 1973, drawingon the significance of the personal point of view.

Crisp, Roger. Integrity. In Mill on Utilitarianism. By Roger Crisp, 135-153. London: Routledge,1997.

The most accessible account of Williamss integrity objection (see Williams 1973), and related problemsfor consequentialism.

Railton, Peter. Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality. Philosophy andPublic Affairs 13 (1984): 134171.Brings together the two objections of integrity and demandingness, around the central notion of alienation.Sophisticated extension of the classic objection presented by Williams 1973. Reprinted in Scheffler 1988(cited under Anthologies) and in Railton 2003 (cited under Human Well-Being).

Williams, Bernard. A Critique of Utilitarianism. In Utilitarianism: For and Against. Edited byJ. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams, 77150. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

The classic presentation of one of the most influential modern objections to consequentialism. Engagingand forceful style. Although Williamss arguments have been developed more clearly and systematically byothers, there is still much to be gained by reading them in the original.

Demandingness

Given the state of the world, act consequentialism seems to be an extremely demanding moral theory. Sobel


18 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

2007 is a very good introduction to the debate and also discusses the connections with other related objections.Some consequentialists (extremists) reply that morality simply is very demanding. Singer 1972 argues that allaffluent people should donate to charity until they reach the point where further donations would place them inas precarious a position as those they could save. Kagan 1989 is the most significant philosophical defense ofextremism, consisting of a sustained rebuttal of key nonconsequentialist distinctions. Other consequentialists(moderates) argue that consequentialism can avoid extreme demands. This is often a key motivation fordepartures from standard consequentialism, such as hybrid views and rule consequentialism. Chapter 2 ofScheffler 2003 presents the objection forcefully, and defends the moderate demands of the authors hybridtheory. Murphy 2000 is a detailed and ingenious discussion of the benchmark against which demands should bemeasured. Mulgan 2001 discusses several consequentialist responses to the demandingness objection, beforedeveloping a combined consequentialism that combines act and rule consequentialism. Cullity 2004 is areadable and nuanced discussion of the demands of benevolence.

Cullity, Garrett. The Moral Demands of Affluence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.[DOI: 10.1093/0199258112.001.0001]

Explores the demands of a commonsense principle of benevolence. Not limited to consequentialism, butaddresses the same underlying moral issue. Shows that demandingness is a problem for all moraltheories, not just consequentialism.

Kagan, Shelly. The Limits of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.Rebuts a moderate position by attacking commonsense options and constraints. The gap in Kagansargument is that he does not offer a positive defense of the reason to promote the good. One of the mostinfluential and readable statements of the extreme consequentialist position.

Mulgan, Tim. The Demands of Consequentialism. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.Discusses the main consequentialist responses to the demandingness objection, especially the extremismof Kagan 1989 and Singer 1972, Slotes satisficing consequentialism, rule consequentialism, andSchefflers hybrid view (Scheffler 2003). Develops a combined consequentialism bringing together act andrule consequentialism.

Murphy, Liam. Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Chapters 2 and 3 offer one of the best discussions of how to measure the demands of a moral theory. Adifficult, complex book. Suitable for graduate students and above. Gives pause for thought to anyone whothinks it is clear how the demandingness objection works.

Scheffler, Samuel. The Rejection of Consequentialism. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003.Develops a hybrid view in response to the demands of an unrestricted act consequentialism. Chapter 2explicitly addresses demandingness. Represents one of the main approaches in current debate.


19 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

Singer, Peter. Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1972):229243.

Much-anthologized and much-discussed article. Presents the infamous example of the person walkingpast a child drowning in a pond. Very forceful argument for a demanding morality, and againstself-serving responses. Ideal as a provocative reading for introductory classes.

Sobel, David. The Impotence of the Demandingness Objection. Philosophers Imprint 7.8(2007): 117.

Argues that the demandingness objection has no independent force, as we will only find demandingnessintuitions compelling if we have already rejected consequentialism for other reasons. Clear, up-to-dateaccount of the literature on the topic, and an ideal introduction.

CONSEQUENTIALIST POLITICAL THEORY

The classical utilitarians were often more interested in politics than individual morality, and many of the workscited under Classical Utilitarianism discuss classical utilitarian political philosophy. Mill 1998 is the classicstatement of the relationship between utilitarianism and justice. Kymlicka 2001 is a good introduction to theutilitarian political tradition. Frey 1984 is an influential collection of articles asking whether consequentialistscan embrace rights. Goodin 1995 argues that utilitarianism is much more plausible for political theory than forindividual morality. Since the 1970s, one particular focus is the utilitarian response to Rawls. Rawls 1971 offersa sustained critique of utilitarianism, centered on the complaint that it ignores the separateness of persons.Scheffler 2001 is an excellent overview of the ensuing debate. Recent discussion of consequentialist politicaltheory often focuses on demandingess or future people, both covered separately here.

Frey, Ray, ed. Utility and Rights. Oxford: Blackwell, 1984.Collection of essays on all aspects of the clash between utilitarianism and the theory of rights. Includescontributions from both consequentialists (Frey, Sumner, Hare, Griffin), and their opponents (Raz, Mackie,McCloskey, Narveson, Ryan).

Goodin, Robert. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press,1995.

[DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511625053]

Collection of freestanding essays, united by the common theme of a return to the classical utilitariantradition, where utilitarianism is primarily an account of institutional justice, rather than individualmorality. Argues that institutional utilitarianism avoids many standard recent objections toconsequentialism, especially those relating to impartiality or alienation.

Kymlicka, Will. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2001.

Clear, accurate presentation of the utilitarian approach to political philosophy. Ideal as an introduction to


20 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

both historical and current debates. See chapter 2.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Edited by Roger Crisp. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.Chapter 5, On the Connexion between Justice and Utility, is a classic statement of the place of rights andjustice within classical utilitarianism. Originally published in 1861. Crisps edition has a philosophicalintroduction, thorough notes, and an extended bibliography.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1971.Seminal text of 20th-century political philosophy. Argues that utilitarianism ignores the separateness ofpersons and develops that critique within Rawlss original position. (Sections 5 and 2730.) Rawls regardsutilitarianism as his theorys main rival. Essential reading for anyone wishing to understand the place ofutilitarianism in recent political philosophy.

Scheffler, Samuel. Rawls and Utilitarianism. In Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justiceand Responsibility in Liberal Thought. Edited by Samuel Scheffler, 149172. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2001.

Explores Rawlss conflicting and changing attitudes to utilitarianism, both in Rawls 1971 and in later work.Highlights common ground between Rawls and utilitarianism, and explores the possible place ofutilitarianism within a Rawlsian overlapping consensus. Excellent background for consequentialistsinterested in Rawlsian liberalism. Reprinted in The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, edited by SamuelFreeman (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 426459.

FUTURE PEOPLE

Consequentialists give a high priority to obligations to future people, as the potential impact of our actions onfuture well-being is enormous. One key issue is aggregation, discussed separately above (See Aggregation andDistribution). Another is Parfits non-identity problem. Parfit 1984 is the seminal text and is still essentialreading. Roberts and Wasserman 2009 is a broad-ranging collection demonstrating how pervasive thenonidentity problem has become in contemporary moral theory. Roberts 2002 seeks to reconcile person-affecting intuitions with consequentialism. Mulgan 2006 defends a moderate consequentialist account of ourobligations to future people, and offers the most sustained consequentialist discussion of intergenerationaljustice. Vallentyne and Kagan 1997 is a good introduction to the many puzzles raised for utilitarianism by theprospect of an infinite future.

Mulgan, Tim. Future People. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.[DOI: 10.1093/019928220X.001.0001]

Defends a rule consequentialist account of our obligations to future people, and a liberal consequentialistaccount of intergenerational justice. Seeks to side step the standard debates by construing standardpuzzles such as the repugnant conclusion as pertaining to obligations, as put forth in Parfit 1984, ratherthan the comparative values of possible futures.


21 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.Seminal text on future people. Introduces the nonidentity problem, repugnant conclusion, and mereaddition paradox. The foundation for all subsequent debate, and still essential reading. Suitable forintroductory classes. See especially Part 4.

Roberts, Melinda. A New Way of Doing the Best That We Can: Person-Based Consequentialismand the Equality Problem. Ethics 112.2 (2002): 315350.[DOI: 10.1086/324321]

Defends person-affecting consequentialism, where our obligation is to maximize the well-being of eachperson. Argues that this enables consequentialism to respect various person-affecting intuitions, andthereby resolve Parfits nonidentity problem. Representative of one influential response to Parfit 1984.

Roberts, Melinda, and David Wasserman, eds. Harming Future Persons: Ethics, Genetics and theNonidentity Problem. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2009.[DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5697-0]

Collection of new essays by leading contemporary participants in the debate over Parfits nonidentityproblem (Parfit 1984). Covers theoretical issues in normative ethics as well as practical questions inmedical ethics. Up-to-date overview of the debate.

Vallentyne, Peter, and Shelly Kagan. Infinite Value and Finitely Additive Value Theory. Journal ofPhilosophy 94 (1997): 526.[DOI: 10.2307/2941011]

Defends a particular way to extend consequentialism to cover an infinite future. The best introduction tothe puzzles surrounding infinite value.

LAST MODIFIED: 06/29/2011

DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780195396577-0026

BACK TO TOP

Copyright 2011. All rights reserved.


22 of 22 9/24/2011 08:37

Ethical Consequentialism

Documents