Agent-Neutrality, Consequentialism, Utilitarianism … A Terminological Note

Skorupski, John

doi:10.1017/s0953820800001837

Cited by 61 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 1 Consequentialist moral theories hold that the moral status of an act is determined solely by its consequences (cf. Skorupski, 1995 ; Sinnott-Armstrong, 2001 ). On this view, the only reason that an act can be morally unacceptable (or “impermissible” or, simply, “wrong”) is that it has or can be expected to have bad consequences, or worse consequences than the alternatives.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why is Cognitive Enhancement Deemed Unacceptable? The Role of Fairness, Deservingness, and Hollow Achievements

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We ask why pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) is generally deemed morally unacceptable by lay people. Our approach to this question has two core elements. First, we employ an interdisciplinary perspective, using philosophical rationales as base for generating psychological models. Second, by testing these models we investigate how different normative judgments on PCE are related to each other. Based on an analysis of the relevant philosophical literature, we derive two psychological models that can potentially explain the judgment that PCE is unacceptable: the “Unfairness-Undeservingness Model” and the “Hollowness-Undeservingness Model.” The Unfairness-Undeservingness Model holds that people judge PCE to be unacceptable because they take it to produce unfairness and to undermine the degree to which PCE-users deserve reward. The Hollowness-Undeservingness Model assumes that people judge PCE to be unacceptable because they find achievements realized while using PCE hollow and undeserved. We empirically test both models against each other using a regression-based approach. When trying to predict judgments regarding the unacceptability of PCE using judgments regarding unfairness, hollowness, and undeservingness, we found that unfairness judgments were the only significant predictor of the perceived unacceptability of PCE, explaining about 36% of variance. As neither hollowness nor undeservingness had explanatory power above and beyond unfairness, the Unfairness-Undeservingness Model proved superior to the Hollowness-Undeservingness Model. This finding also has implications for the Unfairness-Undeservingness Model itself: either a more parsimonious single-factor “Fairness Model” should replace the Unfairness-Undeservingness-Model or fairness fully mediates the relationship between undeservingness and unacceptability. Both explanations imply that participants deemed PCE unacceptable because they judged it to be unfair. We conclude that concerns about unfairness play a crucial role in the subjective unacceptability of PCE and discuss the implications of our approach for the further investigation of the psychology of PCE.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why is Cognitive Enhancement Deemed Unacceptable? The Role of Fairness, Deservingness, and Hollow Achievements

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Formal accounts of the agent-relative/agent-neutral distinction have been developed by Nagel [1970], Sen [1982], Nagel [1986], Pettit [1987], McNaughton and Rawling [1991], and Skorupski [1995]. Of these various accounts, the account by McNaughton and Rawling is generally considered the most promising, and has come to be the most influential formal account in the literature.…”

Section: Developing a Formal Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing Agent-Relativity from Agent-Neutrality

Hammerton

2018

Australasian Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The agent-relative/agent-neutral distinction is one of the most important in contemporary moral theory. Yet providing an adequate formal account of it has proven to be difficult. In this article I defend a new formal account of the distinction, one that avoids various problems faced by other accounts. My account is based on an influential account of the distinction developed by McNaughton and Rawling. I argue that their approach is on the right track but that it succumbs to two serious objections. I then show how to formulate a new account that follows the key insights of McNaughton and Rawling's approach yet avoids the two objections.

show abstract

“…Sen 2000. See also Sen 1983, Skorupski 1995, Scanlon 1998, pp. 88-90, Louise 2004, and Hansson 2014 Thirdly, motives and mental causes of actions and decisions have often been excluded.…”

Section: The Delimitation Of Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scopes, Options, and Horizons – Key Issues in Decision Structuring

Hansson

2018

Ethic Theory Moral Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Real-life decision-making often begins with a disorderly decision problem that has to be clarified and systematized before a decision can be made. This is the process of decision structuring that has largely been ignored both in decision theory and applied decision analysis. In this contribution, ten major components of decision structuring are identified, namely the determination of its scope (the issues to be covered by the decision), subdivision (if and in that case how the decision will divided into separate parts), agency (who will make the decision), timing, options, control ascriptions, framing, horizon (the consequences and other aspects of outcomes that will be taken into account), criteria (of success) and (provisions for) restructuring. Four of these components, namely the scope, subdivision, options, and horizon of a decision, are subjected to a more detailed analysis.

show abstract

Agent-Neutrality, Consequentialism, Utilitarianism … A Terminological Note

Cited by 61 publications

References 3 publications

Why is Cognitive Enhancement Deemed Unacceptable? The Role of Fairness, Deservingness, and Hollow Achievements

Why is Cognitive Enhancement Deemed Unacceptable? The Role of Fairness, Deservingness, and Hollow Achievements

Distinguishing Agent-Relativity from Agent-Neutrality

Scopes, Options, and Horizons – Key Issues in Decision Structuring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About