- Copyright Page
- Relativized Rankings
- Fault Lines in Ethical Theory
- Actualism, Possibilism, and the Nature of Consequentialism
- Consequentialism, Blame, and Moral Responsibility
- Consequentialism and Reasons for Action
- What Should a Consequentialist Promote?
- Understanding the Demandingness Objection
- Consequentialism and Partiality
- Must I Benefit Myself?
- Supererogation and Consequentialism
- Consequentialism and Promises
- Consequentialism, Ignorance, and Uncertainty
- Consequentialism and Action Guidingness
- Consequentialism and Indeterminacy
- Value Comparability
- Consequentialism, the Separateness of Persons, and Aggregation
- The Alienation Objection to Consequentialism
- Global Consequentialism
- The Role(s) of Rules in Consequentialist Ethics
- Consequentialism, Virtue, and Character
- Population Ethics, the Mere Addition Paradox, and the Structure of Consequentialism
- Deontic Pluralism and the Right Amount of Good
- Conflicts and Cooperation in Act Consequentialism
- The Science of Effective Altruism
- Effective Altruism: A Consequentialist Case Study
- Consequentialism and Nonhuman Animals
- Public Policy, Consequentialism, the Environment, and Nonhuman Animals
- The Love–Hate Relationship between Feminism and Consequentialism
- Act Consequentialism and the No-Difference Challenge
Abstract and Keywords
Many types of things are arguably appropriate objects of deontic moral assessment: not only acts but also decision procedures, character traits, motives, public moral codes, and so on. Global consequentialism recommends, for every type that is an appropriate object of deontic assessment at all, that we assess items of that type in terms of their consequences. This (and not simple act consequentialism alone) seems to be roughly the kind of consequentialist thesis that real-life consequentialists, both past and present, have generally been sympathetic to. In this chapter, I articulate a thesis along these lines and defend the thesis in question against the most common objection it faces (“the inconsistency objection”). I discuss the extent to which “going global” deals satisfactorily with three standard objections to act consequentialism: the incorrect verdicts objection, the self-defeatingness objection, and the silence objection. I conclude that global consequentialism has adequate responses to all of these objections, but that it is unclear whether global consequentialism is superior to an account that simply stresses the importance of global axiological assessment.
Hilary Greaves is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Global Priorities Institute at the University of Oxford. Her main research interests concern issues in moral philosophy, decision theory, and economics, with a special focus on issues that arise in the course of considering how an altruistic actor might most cost-effectively do good. Her published work includes articles on moral uncertainty, population ethics, discounting, and theories of well-being and of interpersonal aggregation.
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.