Philosophical Studies

, Volume 162, Issue 3, pp 547–566 | Cite as

Objective consequentialism and the licensing dilemma

Article

Abstract

Frank Jackson has put forward a famous thought experiment of a physician who has to decide on the correct treatment for her patient. Subjective consequentialism tells the physician to do what intuitively seems to be the right action, whereas objective consequentialism fails to guide the physician’s action. I suppose that objective consequentialists want to supplement their theory so that it guides the physician’s action towards what intuitively seems to be the right treatment. Since this treatment is wrong according to objective consequentialism, objective consequentialists have to license it without calling it right. I consider eight strategies to spell out the idea of licensing the intuitively right treatment and argue that objective consequentialism is on the horns of what I call the licensing dilemma: Either the physician’s action is not guided towards the intuitively right treatment. Or the guidance towards the intuitively right treatment is ad hoc in some respect or the other.

Keywords

Objective consequentialism Subjective consequentialism Frank Jackson Action-guidance Licensing dilemma 

References

  1. Bales, R. E. (1971). Act-utilitarianism: account of right-making characteristics or decision-making procedure? American Philosophical Quarterly, 8, 257–265.Google Scholar
  2. Bergström, L. (1996). Reflections on consequentialism. Theoria, 62, 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bykvist, K. (2010). Utilitarianism. A guide for the perplexed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  4. Feldman, F. (2006). Actual utility, the objection from impracticality, and the move to expected utility. Philosophical Studies, 129, 49–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jackson, F. (1991). Decision theoretic consequentialism and the nearest and dearest objection. Ethics, 101, 461–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jackson, F., & Pargetter, R. (1986). Oughts options, and actualism. The Philosophical Review, 95, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Moore, G. E. (1912). Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1966.Google Scholar
  8. Norcross, A. (2006). The scalar approach to utilitarianism. In H. R. West (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to Mill’s utilitarianism (pp. 217–232). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Persson, I. (2008). A consequentialist distinction between what we ought to do and ought to try. Utilitas, 20, 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pettit, P., & Smith, M. (2000). Global consequentialism. In B. Hooker, E. Mason, & D. E. Miller (Eds.), Morality, rules, and consequences—a critical reader (pp. 121–133). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Regan, T. (1980). Utilitarianism and cooperation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shaw, W. H. (1999). Contemporary Ethics. Taking account of utilitarianism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Smith, M. (2006). Moore on the right, the good, and uncertainty. In T. Horgan & M. Timmons (Eds.), Metaethics after moore (pp. 133–148). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Tännsjö, T. (1995). In defence of theory in ethics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 25, 571–594.Google Scholar
  16. Zimmerman, M. J. (2008). Living with uncertainty—the moral significance of ignorance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations