Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 71–82 | Cite as

The Dimensions of Consequentialism: Reply to Schmidt, Brown, Howard-Snyder, Crisp, Andric and Tanyi, and Gertken

  • Martin PetersonEmail author


In this article I respond to comments and objections raised in the special issue on my book The Dimensions of Consequentialism. I defend my multi-dimensional consequentialist theory against a range of challenges articulated by Thomas Schmidt, Campbell Brown, Frances Howard-Snyder, Roger Crisp, Vuko Andric and Attila Tanyi, and Jan Gertken. My aim is to show that multi-dimensional consequentialism is, at least, a coherent and intuitively plausible alternative to one-dimensional theories such as utilitarianism, prioritarianism, and mainstream accounts of egalitarianism. I am very grateful to all contributors for reading my book so closely and for devoting time and intellectual energy to thinking about the pros and cons of multi-dimensional consequentialism.


Multi-dimensional consequentialism Utilitarianism Prioritarianism Equality The dimensions of consequentialism 


  1. Levi, I. (1989) ‘Rationality, Prediction, and Autonomous Choice’, Can J Philo 19 (Suppl), 339–362. Reprinted in Levi, I. (1997): The Covenant of Reason, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Mill JS (1861/1969) Collected works of John Stuart Mill. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  3. Peterson M (2006) ‘Indeterminate preferences’, Philos Stud 130(2):297–320.Google Scholar
  4. Peterson M (2008) Non-bayesian decision theory. Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Peterson M (2013) The dimensions of consequentialism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Spohn W (1977) ‘Where Luce and Krantz do really generalize Savage’s decision model’, Erkenntnis 11:113–134.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations