Perspectival Act Utilitarianism

Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 351)

Abstract

This paper explores a problem involved in defining the act utilitarian notion of a “right action” within the framework of stit semantics. The problem is there seem to be two different, and conflicting, ways of defining this idea, both intuitively attractive. Previous work has addressed this problem by developing separate theories to account for our conflicting intuitions. This paper shows that the problem can also be addressed through a single theory that allows actions to assessed from different perspectives.

Keywords

Conditional Optimality Unique History Utilitarian Theory Dominance Sense Conditional Dominance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Belnap N (2001) Double time references: speech act reports as modalities in an indeterministic setting. In: Wolter F, Wansing H, de Rijke M, Zakharyaschev M (eds) Advances in modal logic, vol 3, CSLI Publications, Stanford pp 1–21Google Scholar
  2. Belnap N (2004) Future contingents and the sea battle tomorrow, manuscript, Philosophy Department, University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  3. Belnap N, Perloff M, Xu M (2001) Facing the future: Agents and choices in our indeterminist world. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergström L (1966) The alternatives and consequences of actions, Stockholm Studies in Philosophy, vol 4. Almqvist and Wiksell, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergström L (1977) Utilitarianism and future mistakes. Theoria 43:84–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson E (1995) Consequentialism reconsidered, theory and decision library, series A: Philosophy and methodology of the social sciences, vol 20. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics 75:643–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feldman F (1986) Doing the best we can: An essay in informal deontic logic. D. Reidel Publishing Company, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  9. Gärdenfors P, Sahlin NE (eds) (1988) Decision, probability, and utility: Selected readings. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbard A (1965) Rule-utilitarianism: merely an illusory alternative? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 43:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldman H (1976) Dated rightness and moral imperfection. The Philosophical Review 85:449–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldman H (1978) Doing the best one can. In: Goldman AI, Kim J (eds) Values and morals, D. Reidel Publishing Compamy, Dordrecht, pp 185–214Google Scholar
  13. Greenspan P (1978) Oughts and determinism: a response to Goldman. Philosophical Review pp 77–83Google Scholar
  14. Horty J (2001) Agency and deontic logic. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Humberstone IL (1983) The background of circumstances. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64:19–34Google Scholar
  16. Jackson F (1985) On the semantics and logic of obligation. Mind 94:177–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackson F (1987) Group morality. In: Pettit P, Sylvan R, Norman J (eds) Metaphysics and morality: Essays in honour of J. J.C. Smart, Basil Blackwell Inc., Oxford pp 91–110Google Scholar
  18. Jackson F (1988) Understanding the logic of obligation. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 62, Harrison and SonsGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson F, Pargetter R (1986) Oughts, options, and actualism. Philosophical Review 99:233–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luce RD, Raiffa H (1957) Games and decisions. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. MacFarlane J (2003) Future contingents and relative truth. Philosophical Quarterly 53:321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McKinsey M (1979) Levels of obligation. Philosophical Studies 35:385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Prior A (1956) The consequences of actions. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 30, Harrison and SonsGoogle Scholar
  25. Prior A (1967) Past, present, and future. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Ramsey F (1931) Truth and probability. In: Braithwaite RB (ed) The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Oxford pp 156–191, originally published in 1926Google Scholar
  27. Regan D (1980) Utilitarianism and co-operation. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Savage L (1951) The theory of statistical decision. Journal of the American Statistics Association 46:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Savage L (1954) The foundations of statistics. John Wiley and Sons, New York second revised edition published by Dover Publications, 1972Google Scholar
  30. Sobel JH (1968) Rule-utilitarianism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 46:146–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sobel JH (1976) Utilitarianism and past and future mistakes. Nous 10:195–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomason R (1970) Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria 36:264–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomason R (1981) Deontic logic and the role of freedom in moral deliberation. In: Hilpinen R (ed) New Studies in Deontic Logic, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht pp 177–186Google Scholar
  34. Zimmerman M (1990) Where did I go wrong? Philosophical Studies 59:55–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy Department and Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations