Decision-Theoretic Consequentialism and the Nearest and Dearest Objection

  title={Decision-Theoretic Consequentialism and the Nearest and Dearest Objection},
  author={Frank Cameron Jackson},
  pages={461 - 482}
Our lives are given shape, meaning and value by what we hold dear, by those persons and life projects to which we are especially committed. This implies that when we act we must give a special place to those persons (typically our family and friends) and those projects. But, according to consequentialism classically conceived, the rightness and wrongness of an action is determined by the action's consequences considered impartially, without reference to the agent whose actions they are… Expand
Love in the Time of Consequentialism
There are several powerful motivations for neutral value-based deontic theories such as Act Consequentialism. Traditionally, such theories have had great difficulty accounting for partiality towardsExpand
Objectivism and Prospectivism About Rightness
In this paper I present a new argument for prospectivism: the view that, for a consequentialist, rightness depends on what is prospectively best rather than what would actually be best. ProspectiveExpand
Consequentialism and Moral Responsibility
This chapter argues that there is a responsibility constraint that applies to all normative theories: what is deemed right or wrong must be something agents could reasonably be deemed responsibleExpand
Corporate Moral Duties: Consequentialism, Collective Moral Agency and the “Ought†Implies “Can†Maxim
The claim according to which corporations are morally responsible is a controversial one. At the same time, it is nowadays common to assign moral duties to companies, especially in work confrontingExpand
How Moral Uncertaintism Can Be Both True and Interesting
Ethics is hard. Many of us are justifiably uncertain about everything from self-defence to partiality to distributive justice. I find myself struck by the question of what to do in the face of thisExpand
Duties to Make Friends
Why, morally speaking, ought we do more for our family and friends than for strangers? In other words, what is the justification of special duties? According to partialists, the answer to thisExpand
Collective Moral Obligations: ‘We-Reasoning’ and the Perspective of the Deliberating Agent
Together we can achieve things that we could never do on our own. In fact, there are sheer endless opportunities for producing morally desirable outcomes together with others. Unsurprisingly,Expand
: This paper investigates the relation between consequentialism, as conceived of in moral theory, and standard expected utility theory. I argue that there is a close connection between the two. IExpand
The Nature of Normativity: A Reply to Holton, Railton, and Lenman
Richard Holton raises some fundamental questions about the theory that I tried to defend in Part I of The Nature of Normativity (2007 a). In particular, he has two main objections to this theory.Expand
When Will a Consequentialist Push You in Front of a Trolley?
As the trolley problem runs its course, consequentialists tend to adopt one of two strategies: (a) silently take comfort in the fact that deontological rivals face their own enduring difficulties, orExpand


Oxford University Press, 1988), pp
  • 93-133, p. 113, my emphasis. All citations to Railton will be to that in Scheffler, ed. Railton (p. 113, n. 24) mentions the decision-theoretic approach in passing, and it is unclear going on the printed word how much substantive disagreement there is between us on the question of what, according to
  • 1990
The Limits of Morality (Oxford
  • 1989
involves the notion of negative responsibility: that if I am ever responsible for anything, 23. See, e.g., the discussion of the allocation of responsibilities in Philip Pettit and Robert Goodin
  • CanadianJournal of Philosophy
  • 1986
Decision theory comes in a number of varieties
  • 1982