Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 04 July 2022

Abstract and Keywords

The actualism/possibilism debate in ethics is about whether counterfactuals of freedom concerning what an agent would freely do if she were in certain circumstances even partly determine that agent’s obligations. This debate arose from an argument against the coherence of utilitarianism in the deontic logic literature. In this chapter, we first trace the historical origins of this debate and then examine actualism, possibilism, and securitism through the lens of consequentialism. After examining their respective benefits and drawbacks, we argue that, contrary to what has been assumed, actualism and securitism both succumb to the so-called nonratifiability problem. In making this argument, we develop this problem in detail and argue that it’s a much more serious problem than has been appreciated. We conclude by arguing that an alternative view, hybridism, is independently the most plausible position and best fits with the nature of consequentialism, partly in light of avoiding the nonratifiability problem.

Keywords: consequentialism, actualism, possibilism, securitism, hybridism, maximalism, omnism, counterfactuals of freedom, action-guiding, nonratifiability problem

Yishai Cohen

Yishai Cohen is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern Maine. His research focuses on agency, ethics, metaphysics, and the philosophy of religion. He is particularly interested in the relationship between libertarian free will and a variety of issues in ethics, including ‘Ought’ Implies ‘Can’, the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, and the actualism/possibilism debate.

Travis Timmerman

Travis Timmerman is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Seton Hall University. He specializes in normative ethics, applied ethics, and the philosophy of death. In normative ethics, he primarily works on the actualism/possibilism debate, having recently coauthored the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2019) entry on the topic as well as “How To Be an Actualist and Blame People” in Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility (2019). In the death literature, he focuses on axiological questions about death’s badness. Recent publications include “A Dilemma for Epicureanism” in Philosophical Studies (2019) and “Avoiding the Asymmetry Problem” in Ratio (2018). In applied ethics, he works on issues related to global poverty and questions about the ethics of historical monuments. Publications in applied ethics include “Sometimes There Is Nothing Wrong with Letting a Child Drown” in Analysis (2015) and “A Case for Removing Confederate Monuments” in Oxford University Press’s Ethics Left and Right (2020).

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.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us.