Consequentialism (Philosophy)

Consequentialism, rationality and the relevant description of outcomes

by Bruno Verbeek

CONSEQUENTIALISM AND RATIONAL CHOICE: LESSONS FROM THE ALLAIS PARADOX

by Bruno Verbeek

The Curious Case of Consequentialism

by Nathan Wood

There are many different theories of ethics proclaiming different methodologies and different justifications. When we... more There are many different theories of ethics proclaiming different methodologies and different justifications. When we enter into the market for an ethical theory we are looking for one that we can and believe we should live our lives in accordance. A moral theory sets up certain goals to achieve and, more importantly, ways of accomplishing those goals. However, a serious question arises regarding this perspective. Is it true that all moral theories must simultaneously posit goals and specific ways of achieving them? Should we abandon the theory if these practices turn out to be ineffective or, even worse, counterproductive? Or is it possible to maintain the original theory and allow for the adoption of any method that would better achieve these goals? In Peter Railton’s essay “Alienation, Consequentialism, and Morality,” he argues that certain consequentialist ethical theories do not need to be wedded to any particular method, but can use whatever tools available to accomplish its goals. For Railton, such a possibility does not constitute the theory as self-defeating, rather he takes it to be a virtue of a moral theory (or theory in general?) that it can bend and flex without breaking. An original motivation for the subtle distinctions he makes is to steer clear of a consequentialist paradox analogous to the infamous ‘paradox of hedonism.’ Railton’s sophisticated maneuvers, however, avoid one form of the paradox only to lead to another. In allowing for the separation of one’s goal and one’s method the sophisticated consequentialist could end up prescribing, i.e. morally requiring, something impossible and, therefore, self-defeating.

Hooker on Rule Consequentialism and Virtue

by Dale E. Miller

Consequentialism and Utilitarianism

by Dale E. Miller

Forthcoming in the Routledge Companion to Political and Social Philosophy, ed. Gerald Gaus and Fred D'Augustino, 2012.

Sorel, Nietzsche and ethical reasoning about violence: further thoughts on ‘Justifications for violence’, K. Magill, in L. Kurtz ed. The Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, Academic Press, 2008 (2nd Edition)

by Kevin Magill

Unpublished: originally written as part of 'Justifications for Violence' (http://wlv.academia.edu/KevinMagill/Papers/449679/Justifications_for_Violence) but cut to keep to word limit.

Discusses claims and arguments, not considered in 'Justifications for Violence', against the idea of reasoning morally... more Discusses claims and arguments, not considered in 'Justifications for Violence', against the idea of reasoning morally about violence.

Justifications for Violence

by Kevin Magill

10,000 word essay, published in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, 2nd edn, ed. Lester Kurz, Elsevier, 2008.

See also 'Sorel, Nietzsche and ethical reasoning about violence: further thoughts on "Justifications for violence" ...’ http://wlv.academia.edu/KevinMagill/Papers/515618/Sorel_Nietzsche_and_ethical_reasoning_about_violence_further_thoughts_on_Justifications_for_violence_K._Magill_in_L._Kurtz_ed._The_Encyclopedia_of_Violence_Peace_and_Conflict_Academic_Press_2008_2nd_Edition_

Examines various arguments about whether and under what circumstances political violence can be justified and how they... more Examines various arguments about whether and under what circumstances political violence can be justified and how they can be employed in thinking ethically about violence. It begins by looking at arguments about the justifiability of violence that draw on major ethical theories such as deontology, utilitarianism and consequentialism. It then discusses more specific considerations and arguments concerning obligations to obey the law, the relationship between violence and reason, and between violence and democracy, and whether our duties and obligations regarding the use of violence are universal in scope or are limited by national, religious, community and class affiliation. Finally, it makes some novel suggestions about the overall purpose and conduct of discussions about the justifiability of violence in political theory and philosophy.