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 View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Texas A&M Repository 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Psychology and the Aims of Normative Ethics”
    Regina A. Rini (forthcoming). “Psychology and the Aims of Normative Ethics”. To appear in Springer Handbook of Neuroethics (ed. J. Clausen and N. Levy). Psychology and the Aims of Normative Ethics Regina A. Rini University of Oxford [email protected] Abstract: This chapter discusses the philosophical relevance of empirical research on moral cognition. It distinguishes three central aims of normative ethical theory: understanding the nature of moral agency, identifying morally right actions, and determining the justification of moral beliefs. For each of these aims, the chapter considers and rejects arguments against employing cognitive scientific research in normative inquiry. It concludes by suggesting that, whichever of the central aims one begins from, normative ethics is improved by engaging with the science of moral cognition. Key words: is/ought gap, moral agency, moral intuition, moral philosophy, ought-implies- can I. Three Central Questions of Normative Ethics It is undeniable that the field of empirical moral psychology has grown dramatically in the last decade, with new experimental techniques allowing us unprecedented understanding of the causal and computational structures of the human moral faculty. Or, at least, it is undeniable that this research contributes to a descriptive project, one of better understanding the facts about who we are and how we think.1 But what might be denied is that these investigations have much to offer to normative ethics, a distinctively prescriptive sort of inquiry.2 The purpose of this chapter is to show why normative ethics - the study of 1 Although this chapter discusses quite a range of psychological findings, it is not intended to be a comprehensive overview of the empirical literature.
    [Show 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.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Normative Ethics
    Normative ethics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Normative ethics is the new "it" branch of philosophical ethics concerned with Ethics classifying actions as right and wrong. Theoretical Normative ethics attempts to develop a set of rules governing human conduct, Meta-ethics or a set of norms for action. It deals with what people should believe to be right Normative · Descriptive Consequentialism and wrong, as distinct from descriptive ethics, which deals with what people do Deontology believe to be right and wrong. Hence, normative ethics is sometimes said to be Virtue ethics prescriptive, rather than descriptive. Ethics of care Good and evil · Morality Moreover, because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics, which studies the nature Applied of moral statements, and from applied ethics, which places normative rules in practical contexts. Bioethics · Medical Engineering · Environmental Human rights · Animal rights Normative ethical theories Legal · Media Business · Marketing Consequentialism (Teleology) argues that the morality of an action is Religion · War contingent on the action's outcome or result. Some consequentialist theories include: Core issues Utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it leads to the most value for the greatest number of people (Maximizes value for Justice · Value all people). Right · Duty · Virtue Egoism, the belief that the moral person is the self-interested Equality · Freedom · Trust person, holds that an action is right if it maximizes good for the Free will · Consent self. Moral responsibility Deontology argues that decisions should be made considering the factors Key thinkers of one's duties and other's rights.
    [Show full text]
  • CHV 319: Normative Ethics Fall Semester 2014/15
    PHI 319/ CHV 319: Normative Ethics Fall semester 2014/15 Instructor: Johann Frick Office: 203 Marx Hall Office Hours: Wednesdays 10am-noon. Phone: 8-9494 Email: [email protected] Course Description Normative ethics is the systematic study of what is morally right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust, and why. In Part 1 of this course, we will closely examine a number of rival moral theories that provide answers to these questions. We will contrast utilitarian or, more broadly, consequentialist moral theories with various non-consequentialist alternatives, such as contractualism and Kantian ethics, and investigate their respective strengths and weaknesses. Amongst the issues we will discuss are: • Obligations to the distant needy and the demandingness of consequentialism • Ideal vs non-ideal moral theories • Theories of wellbeing • Moral aggregation and the ‘Numbers Problem’ • Intentions and permissibility and the ‘Doctrine of Double Effect’ • Killing vs letting die and the ‘Trolley Problem’ • Negative responsibility, complicity with evil, and the problem of ‘dirty hands’ • Moral maxims and Kant’s Categorical Imperative. In Part 2 of the course, we will look at a number of concrete issues in normative ethics, often connected to the broader theoretical debates examined in Part 1. These will include: • Liberty and paternalism • Moral limits on markets: objections from commodification and exploitation • The value of distributive equality • The ethics of risk imposition • ‘Moral luck’ • Suicide • Abortion • The moral status of future persons and the ‘Non-Identity Problem’. Course Requirements Lectures are Tuesdays and Thursdays, 11:00 to 11:50 am, in McCosh 2. The location and timing of precepts will be determined after the second class.
    [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]
  • 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]