DOCSLIB.ORG

John Stuart Mill's Sanction Utilitarianism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
John Stuart Mill's Sanction Utilitarianism JOHN STUART MILL’S SANCTION UTILITARIANISM: A PHILOSOPHICAL AND HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION A Dissertation by DAVID EUGENE WRIGHT Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Linda Radzik Committee Members, Clare Palmer Scott Austin R.J.Q. Adams Head of Department, Gary Varner May 2014 Major Subject: Philosophy Copyright 2014 David Eugene Wright ABSTRACT This dissertation argues for a particular interpretation of John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, namely that Mill is best read as a sanction utilitarian. In general, scholars commonly interpret Mill as some type of act or rule utilitarian. In making their case for these interpretations, it is also common for scholars to use large portions of Mill’s Utilitarianism as the chief source of insight into his moral theory. By contrast, I argue that Utilitarianism is best read as an ecumenical text where Mill explains and defends the general tenets of utilitarianism rather than setting out his own preferred theory. The exception to this ecumenical approach to the text comes in the fifth chapter on justice which, I argue on textual and historical grounds, outlines the central features of Mill’s utilitarianism. With this understanding of Utilitarianism in place, many of the passages commonly cited in favor of the previous interpretations are rendered less plausible, and interpretations emphasizing Mill’s other writings are strengthened. Using this methodology, I critique four of the most prominent act or rule utilitarian interpretations of Mill’s moral theory. I then provide an interpretation of Mill’s theory of moral obligation and utilitarianism. On Mill’s account of moral obligation (which purportedly holds for moral theories generally, not just utilitarianism) there is a tight relation between an action being wrong and it being subject to punishment by an agent’s conscience. The utilitarian aspect of Mill’s theory concerns the role of rules in an agent’s conscience. According to Mill’s sanction utilitarian view, the actions that are punished ii are those actions that violate the moral rules which, if widely internalized across society, would promote general utility. On this account, an action is wrong when an agent violates a justified moral rule and is properly punished, at least by one’s conscience. An action is right when conditions are such that if the action were not performed, then the action would be properly punished by at least the agent’s conscience. I apply this interpretation to other notable components of Mill’s approach such as his account of practical action (the Art of Life) and his theory of liberty. iii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated, without hesitation, to Katie Wright. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have long looked forward to thanking the many individuals who helped me complete this dissertation. At each stage—theorizing, planning, researching, composing, editing, revising, and defending—there were many who added something and a few who helped with everything. First, I want to thank my dissertation committee members. I want to thank R.J.Q. Adams for taking me on as a History student. I could not have written this dissertation without the central ideas that I developed while under his guidance. I want to thank Clare Palmer, especially for her thorough and incisive feedback throughout the many stages of this project. In several cases I saw her privilege helping me improve my work ahead of other pressing commitments, and for her continual willingness to push me to be clear and careful in my work I am sincerely grateful. I want to thank Scott Austin for his always sagacious and timely advice, and for his endless string of wry comments that brightened my mornings as I returned to the mines of Mill’s Collected Works. I want to thank Michael LeBuffe for spurring me to do better work in the history of philosophy than I thought I could. Both his confidence in my work and his high standards have shaped my aims and hopes for this dissertation. I want to thank the Texas A&M Department of Philosophy staff for their patience and for helping me complete this project. Jamie Bosley, Tom Ellis, Osmara Garcia, and Katy Massey all came to my aid at key moments. I also want to give special thanks to Gary Varner for his role in making it possible for me to spend a semester working on my v dissertation with my wife at the University of Delaware. I also want to thank the audiences at Texas A&M University and Lehigh University where I presented portions of my work. I want to thank friends like John Forcey for our many nights of staying up and arguing philosophy for far longer than we had planned on and for pushing me to be a more creative philosopher. In addition, I want to thank Cody Jackson for helping me revise parts of the dissertation and for never turning away an opportunity to discuss moral and political philosophy. I want to thank my six-year officemate and friend TJ Kasperbauer. No single professor or fellow student has shaped my philosophical thinking as much as he has, and his own drive to do philosophy well has certainly inspired whatever scholarly zealousness one finds in this dissertation. In addition, I want to thank my parents Gary and Carol Wright. So many days I called them feeling tired and discouraged about my progress only to have them raise my spirits by reminding me that I was not alone. I also want to thank my brothers, Micah and Jon, and Jon’s wife Keely, as well my sister Christine and her husband Adam for their support and concern throughout the dissertation. Each of them reached out to me at different points and their encouraging words have not been forgotten. I also want to thank Hope Olson and Wayne Gerber for their support and counsel throughout the process of completing the dissertation. I cannot possibly give sufficient thanks to my dissertation director Linda Radzik. I am grateful for so many things that she did, but for two things in particular. First, she vi took time away from her own projects to meet with me almost every single week from the time I began working seriously on this dissertation. Second, she did not allow me, for one moment, to entertain the idea that I could not or would not do the work that was necessary to complete the dissertation. For me, this was crucial beyond measure and for all of her work I am incredibly thankful. Finally, I want to thank my wife Katie. She was there for long nights, early mornings, and the days with too much or too little coffee and certainly too many pages to write. Both for what she does, and who she is—for these and many things besides, I owe. Thank you all. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ii DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 Basic terminology and the varieties of utilitarianism .......................................... 1 Interpretive methodology... ................................................................................. 12 Outline for the dissertation .................................................................................. 14 CHAPTER II RULE UTILITARIAN INTERPRETATIONS OF MILL ................. 19 Urmson’s rule utilitarian interpretation ............................................................... 21 Fuchs’ rule utilitarian reading ............................................................................. 29 Mill’s Art of Life ................................................................................................. 40 Fuchs’ reply to Sumner and West ....................................................................... 43 Conclusion... ........................................................................................................ 56 CHAPTER III ACT UTILITARIAN INTERPRETATIONS OF MILL .................. 57 Crisp’s interpretive methodology ........................................................................ 59 The greatest happiness principle and the levels of morality ............................... 62 The demandingness of morality .......................................................................... 75 The Art of Life and supererogation ..................................................................... 80 Sanctions and utility maximization ..................................................................... 86 Introduction to Berger ......................................................................................... 93 Berger’s interpretative methodology ................................................................. 94 Analysis of the strategy conception of rules ....................................................... 97 Textual justifications for the strategy conception of rules .................................. 104 Objection to Berger ............................................................................................. 115 viii CHAPTER IV MILL’S ECUMENICAL UTILITARIANISM AND HIS CURIOUS FINAL CHAPTER ................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Moral Obligations to Future Generations
    Moral Obligations toward the Future I. Introduction Until now our ethical considerations have typically involved our interactions with people such as family members, fellow students, and fellow citizens—those who together might be called our moral community. Even when our considerations have encompassed the wider “community” of human beings, we have still limited our thinking to those presently living—to our contemporaries. The same can be said of most moral theories—which likewise tend to focus on the moral obligations of the living toward their contemporaries. This suggests an interesting question: Can we also have moral concerns and obligations involving those who do not belong to our contemporary moral community? For instance, what about those who lived in the past? Although we cannot now affect any persons who are no longer alive, we can still affect some of their interests. Like ourselves, past people certainly had interests in their own human dignity, in what others thought of them, and in the welfare of their progeny. We thus appear to have moral obligations not to desecrate their graves, slander them, or take for ourselves what they willed to their offspring. Further, it seems that we can sometimes hold past persons morally blameworthy for the ways their actions have affected us. Consider a present-day man whose grandparents were gassed by the Nazis. Besides blaming the Nazis for what they did to his grandparents, doesn’t this man also have a right to hold the Nazis responsible for personally wronging him by causing the untimely deaths of his grandparents? Doesn’t the Native American who is destitute today because of policies carried out against her ancestors likewise have a personal moral claim against those past people whose actions led to her present condition? In fact, we take such moral judgments so seriously that reparations are sometimes made to people today for wrongs committed by past generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Consequentialism and Moral Responsibility
    Consequentialism and Moral Responsibility Draft of September 2015 Elinor Mason For Christian Seidel (ed.) Consequentialism: new directions, new problems? OUP, forthcoming. There are two different ways of thinking about the relationship between consequentialism and moral responsibility. First, we might think that consequentialism can give us an account of responsibility. I discuss this possibility briefly, and then set it aside. The other way of thinking about the relationship is the focus of this paper. The question that concerns me, is, to what extent is a normative theory, consequentialism in particular, constrained by requirements that stem from concerns about responsibility? 1. Consequentialist Accounts of Moral Responsibility J.J.C. Smart suggests that we can extend consequentialist reasoning about morality to reasoning about responsibility. One of the attractions of consequentialism is that it provides such a straightforward and attractive account of justification for our moral practices. Why do we pay our taxes, treat each other with respect, look after each other and so on? Because doing so has good consequences. However, this sort of justification, though very appealing when considering moral practice, becomes extremely counterintuitive in other sorts of case. For example, it seems obvious that justification for beliefs cannot be consequentialist. Beliefs must be justified in some way that relates to their truth, though of course there is disagreement about exactly what makes a belief justified. Similarly, so a familiar line of thought goes, whether or not someone is responsible for an act, or for anything else, cannot be determined by looking at the consequences of holding them responsible. The claim that 1 responsibility can be understood in a consequentialist way seems like a category mistake.1 Smart’s view might be correct that, insofar as praising and blaming are actions, consequentialists should take the value of the consequences of performing those acts as the relevant factor in deciding whether or not to perform them.
    [Show full text]
  • 5. What Matters Is the Motive / Immanuel Kant
    This excerpt is from Michael J. Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?, pp. 103-116, by permission of the publisher. 5. WHAT MATTERS IS THE MOTIVE / IMMANUEL KANT If you believe in universal human rights, you are probably not a utili- tarian. If all human beings are worthy of respect, regardless of who they are or where they live, then it’s wrong to treat them as mere in- struments of the collective happiness. (Recall the story of the mal- nourished child languishing in the cellar for the sake of the “city of happiness.”) You might defend human rights on the grounds that respecting them will maximize utility in the long run. In that case, however, your reason for respecting rights is not to respect the person who holds them but to make things better for everyone. It is one thing to con- demn the scenario of the su! ering child because it reduces overall util- ity, and something else to condemn it as an intrinsic moral wrong, an injustice to the child. If rights don’t rest on utility, what is their moral basis? Libertarians o! er a possible answer: Persons should not be used merely as means to the welfare of others, because doing so violates the fundamental right of self-ownership. My life, labor, and person belong to me and me alone. They are not at the disposal of the society as a whole. As we have seen, however, the idea of self-ownership, consistently applied, has implications that only an ardent libertarian can love—an unfettered market without a safety net for those who fall behind; a 104 JUSTICE minimal state that rules out most mea sures to ease inequality and pro- mote the common good; and a celebration of consent so complete that it permits self-in" icted a! ronts to human dignity such as consensual cannibalism or selling oneself into slav ery.
    [Show full text]
  • Satisficing Consequentialism Author(S): Michael Slote and Philip Pettit Source: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol
    Satisficing Consequentialism Author(s): Michael Slote and Philip Pettit Source: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 58 (1984), pp. 139-163+165-176 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Aristotelian Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106846 Accessed: 15/10/2008 09:26 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Aristotelian Society and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant on Obligation and Motivation in Law and Ethics
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy Philosophy, Department of 1994 Kant on Obligation and Motivation in Law and Ethics Nelson T. Potter Jr. University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub Part of the Continental Philosophy Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, and the Legal History Commons Potter, Nelson T. Jr., "Kant on Obligation and Motivation in Law and Ethics" (1994). Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy. 15. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Potter in Jarbuch für Recht und Ethik (1994) 2. Copyright 1994, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. Used by permission. Kant on Obligation and Motivation in Law and Ethics Nelson Potter I. There is a passage in Immanuel Kant's general introduction to both parts of Die Metaphysik der Sitten that deserves more attention than it has received. I plan to build the present paper around the implil:ations of this passage: In all lawgiving (Gesetzgebung) (whether it prescribes for internal or external actions, and whether it prescribes them a priori by reason alone or by the choice of another) there are two elements: first, a law, which represents an action that is to be done as objectively necessary, that is, which makes the action a duty; and second, an incentive, which connects a ground for determining choice to this action subjectively with the representation of the law.
    [Show full text]
  • Chad Van Schoelandt
    CHAD VAN SCHOELANDT Tulane University Department of Philosophy, New Orleans, LA [email protected] Employment 2015-present Assistant Professor, Tulane University, Department of Philosophy 2016-present Affiliated Fellow, George Mason University, F. A. HayeK Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Areas of Specialization Social and Political Philosophy Ethics Agency and Responsibility Philosophy, Politics & Economics Areas of Competence Applied Ethics (esp. Business, Environmental, Bio/Medical) History of Modern Philosophy Moral Psychology Education Ph.D., University of Arizona, Philosophy, 2015 M.A., University of Wisconsin - MilwauKee, Philosophy, 2010 B.A. (High Honors), University of California, Davis, Philosophy (political science minor), 2006 Publications Articles “Moral Accountability and Social Norms” Social Philosophy & Policy, Vol. 35, Issue 1, Spring 2018 “Consensus on What? Convergence for What? Four Models of Political Liberalism” (with Gerald Gaus) Ethics, Vol. 128, Issue 1, 2017: pp. 145-72 “Justification, Coercion, and the Place of Public Reason” Philosophical Studies, 172, 2015: pp. 1031-1050 “MarKets, Community, and Pluralism” The Philosophical Quarterly, Discussion, 64(254), 2014: pp. 144-151 "Political Liberalism, Ethos Justice, and Gender Equality" (with Blain Neufeld) Law and Philosophy 33(1), 2014: pp. 75-104 Chad Van Schoelandt CV Page 2 of 4 Book Chapters “A Public Reason Approach to Religious Exemption” Philosophy and Public Policy, Andrew I. Cohen (ed.), Rowman and Littlefield International,
    [Show full text]
  • Cv Langsam.Pdf
    CV Harold Langsam Professor of Philosophy Corcoran Department of Philosophy 120 Cocke Hall University of Virginia P.O. Box 400780 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4780 (434) 924-6920 (Office) (434) 979-2880 (Home) [email protected] Employment: Professor of Philosophy, University of Virginia (2011-) Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Virginia (2001-2011). Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Virginia (1994-2001). Mellon Postdoctoral Teaching and Research Fellow, Department of Philosophy, Cornell University (1994-95). Publications: Book The Wonder of Consciousness: Understanding the Mind through Philosophical Reflection (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011). Reviews: Ethics and Medicine, Mind, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Philosophical Quarterly Articles “McDowell’s Infallibilism and the Nature of Knowledge,” Synthese, http://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02682-4. “Why Intentionalism Cannot Explain Phenomenal Character,” Erkenntnis 85 (2020): 375-389. “Nietzsche and Value Creation: Subjectivism, Self-Expression, and Strength,” Inquiry 61 (2018): 100-113. “The Intuitive Case for Naïve Realism,” Philosophical Explorations 20 (2017): 106-122. “A Defense of McDowell’s Response to the Sceptic,” Acta Analytica 29 (2014): 43-59. “A Defense of Restricted Phenomenal Conservatism,” Philosophical Papers 42 (2013): 315-340. "Rationality, Justification, and the Internalism/Externalism Debate," Erkenntnis 68 (2008): 79- 101. "Why I Believe in an External World," Metaphilosophy 37 (2006): 652-672. "Consciousness, Experience, and Justification," Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32 (2002): 1- 28. "Externalism, Self-Knowledge, and Inner Observation," Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80 (2002): 42-61. "Strategy for Dualists," Metaphilosophy 32 (2001): 395-418. "Pain, Personal Identity, and the Deep Further Fact," Erkenntnis 54 (2001): 247-271. "Experiences, Thoughts, and Qualia," Philosophical Studies 99 (2000): 269-295.
    [Show full text]
  • Advantages & Disadvantages of Consequential Ethics
    CONSEQUENTIAL ETHICS: SUMMARY (c) 2019 www.prshockley.org Dr. Paul R Shockley What about Consequences? Significant Types of Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism: The right action is what brings about the greatest good Consequential Ethics (CE): An action is right iff it promotes the 1. Consequentialism = whether an act is morally to the greatest number in the long run. Here are different types of best consequences. The best consequences are those in which right depends only on consequences (not utilitarianism: “happiness” is maximized. Central question: what actions will circumstances, the intrinsic nature of the act, or 1. Hedonistic Utilitarianism: maximize Pleasure & minimalize pain. generate the best consequences? This family of outcome based anything that happens before the act). approaches are varied but two, in particular, heed our attention, 2. Act Utilitarianism: an act should be judged by its results. namely, the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) & John 2. Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is 3. Rule Utilitarianism: an act is right iff it follows the rules that promotes Stuart Mill (1806-1873) & egoism or objectivism of Ayn Rand morally right depends only on the actual the best consequences. Ethical rules are chosen in view of the anticipated (1905-1982). Consequential ethics is also referred to as teleological consequences (not foreseen, foreseeable, intended, results flowing from keeping those rules. ethics hence, Greek word teleos, meaning “having reached one’s or likely consequences). 4. Priority Utilitarianism: maximize the achievement of people’s priorities-it is for each person to decide what constitutes personal end” or “goal directed.” This summary centers on utilitarianism. 3. Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is happiness (R.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Negative Average Preference Utilitarianism Roger Chao*
    Journal of Philosophy of Life Vol.2, No.1 (March 2012):55-66 [Discussion Paper] Negative Average Preference Utilitarianism * Roger Chao Abstract For many philosophers working in the area of Population Ethics, it seems that either they have to confront the Repugnant Conclusion (where they are forced to the conclusion of creating massive amounts of lives barely worth living), or they have to confront the Non-Identity Problem (where no one is seemingly harmed as their existence is dependent on the “harmful” event that took place). To them it seems there is no escape, they either have to face one problem or the other. However, there is a way around this, allowing us to escape the Repugnant Conclusion, by using what I will call Negative Average Preference Utilitarianism (NAPU) – which though similar to anti-frustrationism, has some important differences in practice. Current “positive” forms of utilitarianism have struggled to deal with the Repugnant Conclusion, as their theory actually entails this conclusion; however, it seems that a form of Negative Average Preference Utilitarianism (NAPU) easily escapes this dilemma (it never even arises within it). 1. Introduction For many philosophers working in the area of Population Ethics, it seems that either they have to confront the Repugnant Conclusion, or they have to confront the Non-Identity Problem. To them it seems there is no escape, they either have to face one problem or the other. What I will try to show in this paper however, is that there is a way around this, allowing us to escape the Repugnant Conclusion, by using what I will call Negative Average Preference Utilitarianism (NAPU) – which though similar to anti-frustrationism, has some important differences in practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Augustine's Ethics
    15 BONNIE KENT Augustine’s ethics Augustine regards ethics as an enquiry into the Summum Bonum: the supreme good, which provides the happiness all human beings seek. In this respect his moral thought comes closer to the eudaimonistic virtue ethics of the classical Western tradition than to the ethics of duty and law associated with Christianity in the modern period. But even though Augustine addresses many of the same problems that pagan philosophers do, he often defends very different answers. For him, happiness consists in the enjoyment of God, a reward granted in the afterlife for virtue in this life. Virtue itself is a gift of God, and founded on love, not on the wisdom prized by philosophers. The art of living In Book 8 of De civitate Dei Augustine describes “moral philosophy” (a Latin expression), or “ethics” (the Greek equivalent), as an enquiry into the supreme good and how we can attain it. The supreme good is that which we seek for its own sake, not as a means to some other end, and which makes us happy. Augustine adds, as if this were an uncontroversial point, that happiness is the aim of philosophy in general.1 Book 19 opens with a similar discussion. In his summary of Varro’s treatise De philosophia, Augustine reports that no school of philosophy deserves to be considered a distinct school unless it differs from others on the supreme good. For the supreme good is that which makes us happy, and the only purpose of philosophizing is the attainment of happiness.2 Both of these discussions cast philosophy as a fundamentally practical discipline, so that ethics appears to overshadow logic, metaphysics, and other comparatively abstract areas as a philosopher’s chief concern.
    [Show full text]
  • Which Consequentialism? Machine Ethics and Moral Divergence
    MIRI MACHINE INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Which Consequentialism? Machine Ethics and Moral Divergence Carl Shulman, Henrik Jonsson MIRI Visiting Fellows Nick Tarleton Carnegie Mellon University, MIRI Visiting Fellow Abstract Some researchers in the field of machine ethics have suggested consequentialist or util- itarian theories as organizing principles for Artificial Moral Agents (AMAs) (Wallach, Allen, and Smit 2008) that are ‘full ethical agents’ (Moor 2006), while acknowledging extensive variation among these theories as a serious challenge (Wallach, Allen, and Smit 2008). This paper develops that challenge, beginning with a partial taxonomy ofconse- quentialisms proposed by philosophical ethics. We discuss numerous ‘free variables’ of consequentialism where intuitions conflict about optimal values, and then consider spe- cial problems of human-level AMAs designed to implement a particular ethical theory, by comparison to human proponents of the same explicit principles. In conclusion, we suggest that if machine ethics is to fully succeed, it must draw upon the developing field of moral psychology. Shulman, Carl, Nick Tarleton, and Henrik Jonsson. 2009. “Which Consequentialism? Machine Ethics and Moral Divergence.” In AP-CAP 2009: The Fifth Asia-Pacific Computing and Philosophy Conference, October 1st-2nd, University of Tokyo, Japan, Proceedings, edited by Carson Reynolds and Alvaro Cassinelli, 23–25. AP-CAP 2009. http://ia-cap.org/ap-cap09/proceedings.pdf. This version contains minor changes. Carl Shulman, Henrik Jonsson, Nick Tarleton 1. Free Variables of Consequentialism Suppose that the recommendations of a broadly utilitarian view depend on decisions about ten free binary variables, where we assign a probability of 80% to our favored option for each variable; in this case, if our probabilities are well-calibrated and our errors are not correlated across variables, then we will have only slightly more than a 10% chance of selecting the correct (in some meta-ethical framework) specification.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Difference Between Weak Negative and Non-Negative Ethical
    What Is the Difference Between Weak Negative and Non-Negative Ethical Views? Simon Knutsson Foundational Research Institute [email protected] June 2016 Abstract Weak negative views in ethics are concerned with both reducing suffering and pro- moting happiness, but are commonly said to give more weight to suffering than to happiness. Such views include weak negative utilitarianism (also called negative- leaning utilitarianism), and other views. In contrast, non-negative views, including traditional utilitarianism, are typically said to give equal weight to happiness and suffering. However, it is not obvious how weak negative and non-negative views differ, and what it means to give happiness and suffering equal weight, or to give suffering more weight. Contents 1 Introduction2 2 Terminology3 3 The views under consideration3 4 Weak negative utilitarianism and consequentialism3 5 The Weak Negative Doctrine4 6 Weak negative axiology4 7 The difference between weak negative and non-negative views assuming hap- piness and suffering are objectively highly measurable5 8 If statements about magnitudes of happiness versus suffering involve value judgements 7 9 Weak negative and non-negative views are equally affected 10 10 When is it accurate to describe non-negative and weak negative views as symmetric vs. asymmetric? 10 Foundational Research Institute Acknowledgments 12 References 12 Appendix: Value for an individual versus value for the world—where does the negativity set in? 12 List of Figures 1 Common illustrations of non-negative
    [Show full text]