Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T18:15:54.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Impossible Options Are Better: Consequentializing Dilemmas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2020

Brian Talbot Open the ORCID record for Brian Talbot [Opens in a new window]
Brian Talbot*
Affiliation:
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To consequentialize a deontological moral theory is to give a theory which issues the same moral verdicts, but explains those verdicts in terms of maximizing or satisficing value. There are many motivations for consequentializing: to reconcile plausible ideas behind deontology with plausible ideas behind consequentialism, to help us better understand deontological theories, or to extend deontological theories beyond what intuitions alone tell us. It has proven difficult to consequentialize theories that allow for moral dilemmas or that deny that “ought” implies “can.” This article argues that the problem is best solved by allowing impossible actions as inputs into consequentializations. It shows that all other approaches that have been advocated are inadequate. It also argues that progress in consequentialization, and in formal ethics more generally, requires thinking about more than just wrongness and permissibility; we should think about contrary-to-duty obligations and degrees of wrongness as well.

Type
Article
Information
Utilitas , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 221 - 236
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alston, William P. 1988. The Deontological Conception of Epistemic Justification, Philosophical Perspectives, 2, 257–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterman, Robert W. 2009. On the Explanatory Role of Mathematics in Empirical Science, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Ben. 2006. Against Satisficing Consequentialism, Utilitas, 18, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Campbell. 2011. Consequentialize This, Ethics, 121, 749–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckwalter, Wesley & Turri, John. 2015. Inability and Obligation in Moral Judgment, PLoS ONE, 10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calder, Todd. 2005. Kant and Degrees of Wrongness, The Journal of Value Inquiry, 39, 229–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chituc, Vladimir, Henne, Paul, Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, & De Brigard, Felipe. 2016. Blame, Not Ability, Impacts Moral “Ought” Judgments for Impossible Actions: Toward an Empirical Refutation of “Ought” Implies “Can,” Cognition, 150, 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colyvan, Mark, Cox, Damian, & Steele, Katie. 2010. Modelling the Moral Dimensions of Decisions, Nous, 44, 503–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, Carl F. 2006. When Mechanistic Models Explain, Synthese, 153, 355–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwall, Stephen L. 1977. Two Kinds of Respect, Ethics, 88, 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, Franz and List, Christian. 2017. What Matters and How it Matters: A Choice-Theoretic Representation of Moral Theories, Philosophical Review, 126, 421–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreier, Jamie. 2011. In Defense of Consequentializing, in Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, ed. by Timmons, Mark (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 97–119.Google Scholar
Driver, Julia. 2011. Consequentialism (New York: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrester, James William. 1984. Gentle Murder, or the Adverbial Samaritan, Journal of Philosophy, 81, 193–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Peter A. 2011. “Ought” and Ability, Philosophical Review, 120, 337–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Peter A. 2016. A Degrees-of-Moral-Wrongness Argument That the Numbers Do Count, Pea Soup, <http://peasoup.us/2016/04/a-degrees-of-moral-wrongness-argument-that-the-numbers-do-count/> [accessed 6 April 2019].+[accessed+6+April+2019].>Google Scholar
Howard-Snyder, Frances. 2006. “Cannot” Implies “Not Ought,” Philosophical Studies, 130, 233–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurka, Tom. 2019. More Seriously Wrong, More Importantly Right, Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 5, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 2007. Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazar, Seth. 2018. In Dubious Battle: Uncertainty and the Ethics of Killing, Philosophical Studies, 175, 859–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazar, Seth & Lee-Stronach, Chad. 2019. Axiological Absolutism and Risk, Noûs, 53, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee-Stronach, Chad. 2018. Moral Priorities Under Risk, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 48, 793–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1974. Semantic Analyses for Dyadic Deontic Logic, in Logical Theory and Semantic Analysis, ed. by Stenlund, Sören, Henschen-Dahlquist, Ann-Mari, Lindahl, Lars, and others (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1974), 1–14.Google Scholar
Louise, Jennie. 2004. Relativity of Value and the Consequentialist Umbrella, The Philosophical Quarterly, 54, 518–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddie, Graham & Milne, Peter. 1991. Act and Value: Expectation and the Representability of Moral Theories, Theoria, 57, 42–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Martin. 2010. A Royal Road to Consequentialism? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 13, 153–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, Richard. 2016. Accuracy and the Laws of Credence (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, Douglas W. 2007. Consequentializing Moral Theories, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88, 39–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, Douglas W. 2011. Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potochnik, Angela. 2017. Idealization and the Aims of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakken, Henry & Sergot, Marek. 1997. Dyadic Deontic Logic and Contrary-to-Duty Obligations, in Defeasible Deontic Logic, ed. by Nute, Donald (Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media), 223–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rancourt, Benjamin T. 2017. Better Understanding Through Falsehood, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 98, 382–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Sharon. 2003. Doxastic Compatibilism and the Ethics of Belief, Philosophical Studies, 114, 47–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, S. Andrew. 2017. Consequentializing and Its Consequences, Philosophical Studies, 174, 1475–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. 1984. “Ought” Conversationally Implies “Can,” The Philosophical Review, 93, 249–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocker, Michael. 1971. “Ought” and “Can,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 49, 303–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Styron, William. 1979. Sophie’s Choice (New York: Random House).Google Scholar
Suikkanen, Jussi. 2019. Consequentializing Moral Dilemmas, Journal of Moral Philosophy (2019), Online first: <https://doi.org/10.1163/17455243-20182787>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbot, Brian. 2016. The Best Argument for “Ought Implies Can” Is a Better Argument Against “Ought Implies Can,” Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 3, 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, Peter. 1989. Two Types of Moral Dilemmas, Erkenntnis, 30, 301–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar