, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 237–250

The Nonworseness Claim and the Moral Permissibility of Better-Than-Permissible Acts



Grounded in what Alan Wertheimer terms the “nonworseness claim,” it is thought by some philosophers that what will be referred to herein as “better-than-permissible acts”—acts that, if undertaken, would make another or others better off than they would be were an alternative but morally permissible act to be undertaken—are necessarily morally permissible. What, other than a bout of irrationality, it may be thought, would lead one to hold that an act (such as outsourcing production to a “sweatshop” in a developing country) that produces more benefits for others than an act that is itself morally permissible (such as not doing business in the developing country at all) with respect to those same others, is not morally permissible? In this article, I argue that each of the two groups of philosophers that are most likely to accept the nonworseness claim—consequentialists and non-consequentialists—have reason to reject it, and thereby also have reason to reject the belief that better-than-permissible acts are necessarily morally permissible.


Better-than-permissible acts Ethical theory Nonworseness claim Political philosophy 


  1. Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2009). Deontological ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, D. G., & Bowie, N. E. (2003). Sweatshops and respect for persons. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(2), 221–242.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, D. G., & Bowie, N. E. (2007). Respect for workers in global supply chains: advancing the debate over sweatshops. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(1), 135–145.Google Scholar
  4. Bentham, J. (1843). A critical examination of the declaration of rights. In J. Bowring (Ed.), The works of Jeremy Bentham. London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co.Google Scholar
  5. Boatright, J. R. (2009). Occupational health and safety. In T. L. Beauchamp, N. E. Bowie, & D. G. Arnold (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. De George, R. T. (2005). Intellectual property and pharmaceutical drugs: an ethical analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(4), 549–575.Google Scholar
  7. Figart, D. M. (2001). Ethical foundations of the contemporary living wage movement. International Journal of Social Economics, 28(10/11/12), 800–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holliday, I. (2005). Doing business with rights violating regimes corporate social responsibility and Myanmar’s military junta. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hsieh, N. (2009). Does global business have a responsibility to promote just institutions? Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(2), 251–273.Google Scholar
  10. Kagan, S. (1989). The limits of morality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kagan, S. (2001). Thinking about cases. Social Philosophy & Policy, 18(2), 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. King, P. J. (2008). No plaything: ethical issues concerning child-pornography. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 11(3), 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Luce, S. (2002). “The full fruits of our labor”: the rebirth of the living wage movement. Labor History, 43(4), 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Noell, E. S. (2006). Smith and a living wage: competition, economic compulsion, and the scholastic legacy. History of Political Economy, 38(1), 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Oderberg, D. S. (2000). Applied ethics: a non-consequentialist approach. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Pollin, R., & Luce, S. (1998). The living wage: building a fair economy. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Belknap.Google Scholar
  19. Scanlon, T. M. (2001). Symposium on Amartya Sen’s philosophy: 3 Sen and consequentialism. Economics and Philosophy, 17, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shiffrin, S. V. (2010). Incentives, motives, and talents. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 38(2), 111–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Snyder, J. C. (2008). Needs exploitation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 11(4), 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Snyder, J. (2009a). Efficiency, equity, and price gouging: a response to Zwolinski. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(2), 303–306.Google Scholar
  23. Snyder, J. (2009b). What’s the matter with price gouging? Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(2), 275–293.Google Scholar
  24. Snyder, J. (2010). Exploitation and sweatshop labor: perspectives and issues. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2), 187–213.Google Scholar
  25. Spurgin, E. W. (2006). Occupational safety and paternalism: Machan revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(2), 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Waltman, J. L. (2004). The case for the living wage. New York: Algora.Google Scholar
  27. Werhane, P. H., & Gorman, M. E. (2005). Intellectual property rights, moral imagination, and access to life-enhancing drugs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(4), 595–613.Google Scholar
  28. Wertheimer, A. ([1996] 1999). Exploitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Zwolinski, M. (2007). Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17, 689–727.Google Scholar
  30. Zwolinski, M. (2008). The Ethics of Price Gouging. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(3), 347–378.Google Scholar
  31. Zwolinski, M. (2009). Price gouging, non-worseness, and distributive justice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(2), 295–303.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BusinessBlack Hills State UniversitySpearfishUSA

Personalised recommendations