Consequentialist Theories Research Articles

The ethics of alterity and the ethics of care in literary studies

The ethics of care has regularly been described via contrast with deontological, consequentialist, and virtue theories of ethics. Often, such descriptions play care and justice against one another as potentially congruent but frequently competing social goods. This articulation of the field, which moves across major perspectives within moral and political philosophy, does not fully describe how ethics appears in some areas of humanities, particularly literary studies, where an ‘ethics of alterity’ has predominated for several decades. This ethics emphasizes a scene of encounter across difference, and an ethical responsibility to the other which has been narrativized via the scene of hospitality. This essay proposes that the ethics of care and the ethics of alterity share much—more than care ethics shares with other kinds of moral philosophy. But it also identifies differences which have made it easier to position alterity, rather than care, as a guiding ethos for literature, literary criticism, and literature education. Why is this so, and what would it mean for the ethics of care to be more central in literary study and literature education? Taking as an occasion a novel explicitly concerned with care-taking and care-giving, J.M. Coetzee’s Slow Man (2005), the essay explores the prospects for a care-focused practice of literary studies.

A causal modeler's guide to double effect reasoning

AbstractTrolley problems and like cases are often thought to show the inadequacy of purely consequentialist moral theories. In particular, they are often taken to reveal that consequentialists unduly neglect the moral significance of the causal structure of decision problems. To precisify such critiques and one sort of deontological morality they motivate, I develop a formal modeling framework within which trolley problems can be represented as suitably supplemented structural causal models and various consequentialist and double effect‐inspired moral theories can be viewed as disagreeing over the inputs of a common decision rule.

Repugnance at the limit

AbstractThe implications of the repugnant conclusion for consequentialist theories, such as total utilitarianism, have been extensively discussed since the work of Derek Parfit. These discussions make the paradoxes of population ethics depend on welfarist conditions, like the dominance condition (or the Pareto Principle). Thus, one might think that the repugnant conclusion is not a practical problem for deontologists, who deny that we always ought to do what produces the most aggregate welfare. In this study, we offer two impossibility results using what we call the limit aggregation property. This states that when welfaristic and non‐welfaristic considerations conflict, there is a threshold number of persons such that the former can override the latter as long as more people than the threshold number can enjoy increases in well‐being levels. We argue that this property should be accepted even by deontologists, insofar as they do not commit themselves to the implausible absolutist position that fails to assign any moral weight to aggregate welfare. Our results therefore state that any normative population theory that is not absolutist entails (a variant of) the repugnant conclusion or some other implausible conclusion. Therefore, the repugnant conclusion must be taken seriously even by non‐absolutist deontologists, not just consequentialists.

The misapplication dilemma

AbstractWhen policymakers craft rules for use by the general public, they must take into account the ways in which their rules are likely to be misapplied. Should contractualists and rule consequentialists do the same when they search for rules whose general acceptance would be non‐rejectable or ideal? I argue that these theorists face a dilemma. If they ignore the possibility of misapplication, they end up with an unrealistic view that rejects rules designed to protect us from others’ mistakes. On the other hand, if they take misapplication into account, they end up rejecting rules that appeal to what really matters morally in favor of easier‐to‐apply proxies for these rules. This leaves them unable to say why certain wrong acts are wrong, which in turn may lead them to mistaken verdicts about moral worth and wronging. I show how this misapplication dilemma applies to standard contractualist and rule consequentialist theories, but also suggest how it might generalize to other two‐level theories, including those designed to avoid the ideal world objection.

Capital Punishment: Islamic Criminal Law Perspective

This paper delves into the multifaceted dimensions of capital punishment within Islamic criminal law, examining its application and underlying objectives. The study revolves around two primary objects: the application of capital punishment and the objectives of implementing the death penalty. By exploring these dimensions, this paper seeks to elucidate the intricate interplay between justice, societal well-being, and legal philosophy within Islamic jurisprudence. The first object addresses the legal framework and ethical considerations surrounding the practice of capital punishment. Drawing from both retributive and consequentialist theories, the analysis illuminates the dual nature of Islamic jurisprudence in its pursuit of fairness and societal harmony. The second object investigates the objectives underpinning the death penalty's application. Rooted in the concepts of benefits (maslahah) and justice, Islamic legal thought underscores the balanced amalgamation of individual rights and collective welfare. In conclusion, this paper underscores the significance of collaborative efforts among legal scholars, policymakers, and communities to ensure a just and nuanced application of capital punishment. Through comprehensive engagement, Islamic societies can advance a holistic approach to punishment that aligns with the ethos of justice and societal well-being.

Pictures, Quotations, and Distinctions: Fourteen Essays in Phenomenology, RobertSokolowski, Catholic University of America Press, 2022 (ISBN 978‐0‐8132‐3518‐9), xiv + 326 pp., pb $34.95

Pictures, Quotations, and Distinctions: Fourteen Essays in Phenomenology, RobertSokolowski, Catholic University of America Press, 2022 (ISBN 978‐0‐8132‐3518‐9), xiv + 326 pp., pb $34.95

Pretrial diversion agreements after Andersen’s prosecution: a utilitarian theoretical framework

PurposeUsing the ethical consequentialist theory of utilitarianism, this paper aims to demonstrate the correlation between the prosecution of Arthur Andersen LLP and the United States Department of Justice’s (DOJ) increased use of pretrial diversion agreements, both nonprosecution and deferred prosecution agreements (N/DPA) for criminal corporations.Design/methodology/approachThrough an analysis of previous literature, the United States Justice Manual, and data from the Corporate Prosecution Registry, this study examines the trend of N/DPAs from 1992 to 2021. Specifically, the data is examined to assess whether a pattern exists before and after the 2002 prosecution of Andersen.FindingsThis study finds an exponential increase of N/DPAs after Andersen’s prosecution. The DOJ’s basis for the increased use of these agreements is rooted in the utilitarian theory that the punishment of criminal corporations should deter and rehabilitate behavior while also maximizing the benefit to society (e.g. shareholders, employees and business community). The justice manual, memorandums and public speeches explicitly promote the use of N/DPAs for corporations to minimize collateral damage and the potential for negative societal impact.Originality/valueThis study applies a utilitarian framework to explain the criminal justice system’s increased use of pretrial diversion agreements for criminal corporations.

Three Forms of Actualist Direct Consequentialism

AbstractOne family of maximizing act consequentialist theories is actualist direct theories. Indeed, historically there are at least three different forms of actualist direct consequentialism (due to Bentham, Moore, and contemporary consequentialists). This article is about the logical differences between these three actualist direct theories and the differences between actualist direct theories and their competitors. Three main points emerge. First, the sharpest separation between actualist direct theories and their competitors concerns the so-called ‘inheritance’ principle. Second, there are a myriad of other logical differences among actualist direct theories. Third, one theory (Moore's theory) stands out among actualist direct theories because it entails a variety of logical principles. This fact may count in favor of that theory.

A Satisficing Theory of Epistemic Justification

AbstractThere is now a significant body of literature on consequentialist ethics that propose satisficing instead of maximizing accounts. Even though epistemology recently witnessed a widespread discussion of teleological and consequentialist theories, a satisficing account is surprisingly not developed yet. The aim of this paper is to do just that. The rough idea is that epistemic rules are justified if and only if they satisfice the epistemic good, i.e., reach some threshold of epistemic value (which varies with practical context), and believing is justified if and only if it follows said rules.I argue that this alternative to the implicitly established way of thinking in maximizing terms has significant advantages. First, maximizing epistemic value can be unreasonably demanding; second, a satisficing theory can make finding reasonable rules for belief formation and sustenance much more accessible; and third, a satisficing approach is a better alternative to both general subjectivist and maximizing objectivist attempts to spell out epistemic blame.

A Covid19 a természet reneszánsza

Covid19 is a renaissance of natureÁkos BendesThe newly emerged pandemy sheds light on many issues ranging from fragility of our supply chains to economic depression, and all of them have ethical dimensions. To be more precise, we need to clarify the exact nature of a just conduct in the situations arising from crisis. However, the appealing consequentialist theories usually fall short of meeting a fundamental principle, namely the criterion of equal treatment. In the twentieth century, the hegemony of utilitarism started to decline because of the appearance of more sophisticated views. These theories are trying to reconcile the idea of equal moral worth withutilitarist considerations.

The Position of the Municipal Public Administration in the Context of the Pandemic: An analysis from the experience of Juiz de Fora/MG

The COVID-19 pandemic demanded the adoption of swift measures by public managers to control the spread of the disease, as the virus had a high rate of transmissibility. Effective, non-pharmacological actions involving social distancing and isolation were widely applied. It was noticed that they provided opportunities for the collision between the rights to free enterprise and health, by restricting the full exercise of commercial activities. These, intrinsically, promote agglomeration of people. It is therefore necessary to assess whether the restrictive measures for the promotion of the rights to health and life were proportional to the preservation of the essential core of free enterprise. The context of the city of Juiz de Fora was chosen for analysis, between the months of February 2020 and December 2021. Data regarding the number of cases and deaths in the municipality on each day of publication of the municipal decrees that conveyed trade-restrictive measures. The research was supported by the theories of fundamental rights and legal arguments, for the rational (argumentative) and proportional investigation of the implementation of fundamental rights, in the face of conflicts in the concrete case. Still, the consequentialist theory was used to assess whether the examination of economic, social and political impacts prevailed. It started from the assumption that the rights inherent to the exercise of economic activity would prevail over the adoption of sanitary control measures. Through the empirical research methodology, combined with qualitative and inference strategies, it was found that the municipal administration of Juiz de Fora, proportionally, privileged the right to health, over free enterprise.

Verbotsgrade und „kontra-normative“, hypothetische Welten. Zu Wolfgang Spohns Rangtheorie, übertragen auf rechtliche Normensysteme

That wrongdoing can be understood as scalar rather than bivalent, is a kind of truism in modern criminal law theory. But how exactly the strength and stringency of legal prohibitions and corresponding obligations can be conceptualized, is a complicated and intriguing topic. So, Wolfgang Spohn’s elegant, fresh start with a normative ranking theoretic conception of a prohibition order should be warmly welcomed by legal theorists for scrutinized discussion. Anyhow caution is warranted when “counter-normative”, similar worlds-thought experiments are introduced which promise an easy way out of the bramble bush of comparing and weighing different wrongdoings and offences in our actual (factual and normative) world. Furthermore, Spohn’s fact-regarding normative reasoning is too much rooted in modern decision theory, that it can be regarded as completely “theory-neutral” between different understandings of legal norms within deontological and consequentialist theories.

Applying utilitarianism to the presumed consent system for organ donation to consider the moral pros and cons.

In May 2020, England adopted an opt-out approach for organ donation, also referred to as the deemed consent system, with the aim of alleviating the demand for organs in the UK. This system dictates that those who have not opted out will have their organs donated following their death, with the exception of those meeting certain criteria. This article applies the philosophical theory of utilitarianism to the deemed consent system for organ donation, focusing particularly on topics such as that of informed consent and family refusal. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that attempts to determine whether an action is morally right or wrong based on whether or not it maximises the preferences of the greatest number of people, with each person's satisfaction being considered as equal to another's.

The Symposium on “Setting Health-Care Priorities” by Torbjörn Tännsjö

The present paper constitutes an introduction to a special issue of Diametros devoted to Setting Health-Care Priorities. What Ethical Theories Tell Us by Torbjörn Tännsjö. The book in question states that there are three moral theories which have valid implications in the field of the distribution of medical resources in a healthcare system: utilitarianism (possibly conjoined with prioritarianism), the maximin/leximin view, and egalitarianism. A number of authors have contributed to this special issue with papers which challenge this thesis. Robert E. Goodin argues that, besides general moral theories, some local principles of justice might be valid. Quinn Hiroshi Gibson states that Tännsjö should have considered the Rawlsian view on justice in its contractualist reading. Jay A. Zameska argues that his “revised lexical sufficientarianism” constitutes a more reliable moral view than prioritarianism. Finally, Lasse Nielsen points out that there is more to say about distributive justice than consequentialist theories can grasp. Moreover, he puts forward an argument in defense of prioritarianism. The final article in this issue constitutes Tännsjö’s replies to his critics.

Coronavirus and Medical Ethics

Medical ethics has been followed in most nations for decades. But during COVID 19 pandemic situation, again every nation has to deal with the ethics related to categorizing patients and health care distribution while maintaining community health. To solve the dilemma of consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories, the major focus was driven on community health. But while looking at the rate of infected, cured, and death, it’s an alarming sign to India to strengthen the medical resources and follow the common good approach. Every Indian citizen has the right to get proper treatment and funerals after death. Considering the problem associated with the spreading of the virus through dead bodies, cremation was done by medical staff. Due to the limited availability of medical staff and lack of an electric furnace, many dead bodies were cremated after a long time. Due to inadequate medical professionals and technical constraints, the infectivity rate is increasing which is affecting the economy, mental strength, and social values. Hence, now we have to start thinking and working on strengthening hospitals, diagnostic labs, and sophisticated cremation centers to avoid negligence and to follow ethics.

Rawlsian Contractualism and Healthcare Allocation: A response to Torbjörn Tännsjö

The consideration of the problem of healthcare allocation as a special case of distributive justice is especially alluring when we only consider consequentialist theories. I articulate here an alternative Rawlsian non-consequentialist theory which prioritizes the fairness of healthcare allocation procedures rather than directly setting distributive parameters. The theory in question stems from Rawlsian commitments that, it is argued, have a better Rawlsian pedigree than those considered as such by Tännsjö. The alternative framework is worthy of consideration on its own merits, but it also casts light on two related difficulties with Tännsjö’s approach: (i) the limits of his supposedly ecumenical methodology, which is revealed to be dialectically suspect and (ii) issues with the type of abstraction and idealization from actual judgements and preferences which the approach requires.

Pregnancy Clauses

Pregnancy Clauses

Sentencing multiple conviction offenders

Sentenced offenders who re-offend prior to serving their previously imposed sentence (multiple conviction offenders) are situated between multiple and repeat offenders. This article examines how they should be sentenced based on censure, consequentialist and desert theories. I conclude that these aims cannot be achieved if they are treated as repeat offenders, and neither can the requirement of proportionality. Censure is, similarly, communicated primarily via hard treatment not via sentence pronouncement. I further analyse all continental European penal codes; half of them do not have any provision governing the sentencing of multiple conviction offenders (tacitly treating them as repeat offenders) and only two countries provide detailed sentencing guidance. I conclude by offering recommendations for the principled sentencing of multiple conviction offenders.

Informed Altruism and Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that assigns value impartially to the well-being of each person. Informed Altruism, introduced in this article, is an intentionalist theory that relegates both consequentialism and impartiality to subordinate roles. It identifies morally right or commendable actions (including collective actions such as laws and policies) as those motivated by a sufficiently informed intention to benefit and not harm others. An implication of the theory is that multiple agents may perform incompatible actions and yet each be acting rightly in a moral sense.

Kant and Consequentialism in Context: The SecondCritique’s Response to Pistorius

AbstractCommentators disagree about the extent to which Kant’s ethics is compatible with consequentialism. A question that has not yet been asked is whether Kant had a view of his own regarding the fundamental difference between his ethical theory and a broadly consequentialist one. In this paper I argue that Kant does have such a view. I illustrate this by discussing his response to a well-known objection to his moral theory, namely that Kant offers an implicitly consequentialist theory of moral appraisal. This objection was most famously raised by Mill and Schopenhauer, but also during Kant’s time by Pistorius and Tittel. I show that Kant’s response to this objection in the second Critique illustrates that he sees the fundamental difference between his moral theory and a broadly consequentialist one to be one that concerns methodology.