Philosophical Studies

, Volume 174, Issue 12, pp 3097–3108 | Cite as

Actual utility, the mismatch problem, and the move to expected utility

  • Robert GruberEmail author


The mismatch problem for consequentialism arises whenever the theory delivers mismatched verdicts between a group act and the individual acts that compose it. A natural thought is that moving to expected utility versions of consequentialism will solve this problem. I explain why the move to expected utility is not successful.


Consequentialism Expected utility Collective action 



I’d like to thank the audiences at graduate conferences at the University of Utah and Syracuse University for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this essay. I’d also like to thank participants in the UMass dissertation seminar. For their help with this version of the paper, special thanks goes to Christopher Meacham, Peter Graham, Tricia Magalotti, Miles Tucker, Luis Oliveira, and Scott Hill. I’m especially grateful to Fred Feldman for his invaluable help on this project.


  1. Feldman, F. (2006). Actual utility, the objection from impracticality, and the move to expected utility. Philosophical Studies, 129, 49–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gibbard, A. (1990). Utilitarianism and coordination. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Hylland, A., & Zeckhauser, R. (1979). The impossibility of Bayesian group decision making with separate aggregation of beliefs and values. Econometrica, 47(6), 1321–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jackson, F. (1987). Group morality. In J. Smart, P. Pettit, R. Sylvan, & J. Norman (Eds.), Metaphysics and morality: Essays in honour of J.J.C. Smart. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Jackson, F. (1997). Which effects? In J. Dancy (Ed.), Reading Parfit (pp. 42–53). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Kagan, S. (2011). Do I make a difference? Philosophy and Public Affairs, 39(2), 105–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Killoren, D., & Williams, B. (2013). Group agency and overdetermination. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 16, 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nefsky, J. (2012). Consequentialism and the problem of collective harm: A reply to Kagan. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 39(4), 364–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Norcross, A. (2004). Puppies, pigs, and people: Eating meat and marginal cases. Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Pinkert, F. (2015). What if I cannot make a difference (and know it). Ethics, 125(4), 971–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rabinowicz, W. (1988). Act-utilitarian prisoner’s dilemmas. Theoria, 55(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Regan, D. H. (2000). Perceiving imperceptible harms (with other thoughts on transitivity, cumulative effects, and consequentialism). In M. J. Almeida (Ed.), Imperceptible harms and benefits (pp. 49–73). Berlin: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Singer, P. (1980). Utilitarianism and vegetarianism. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9(4), 325–337.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations