Relativized rankings

• Main Author: HAMMERTON, Matthew
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2020
• Subjects: consequentialism; agent-relative; agent-neutral; value; axiology; time-relative; patient-relative; world-relative; special duties; deontic constraints; Philosophy
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3253; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/4510/viewcontent/Relativized_Rankings.pdf
• Institution: Singapore Management University

In traditional consequentialism the good is position-neutral. A single evaluative ranking of states of affairs is correct for everyone, everywhere regardless of their positions. Recently, position-relative forms of consequentialism have been developed. These allow for the correct rankings of states to depend on connections that hold between the state being evaluated and the position of the evaluator. For example, perhaps being an agent who acts in a certain state requires me to rank that state differently from someone else who lacks this connection. In this chapter several different kinds of position-relative rankings related to agents, times, physical locations, and possible worlds are explored. Arguments for and against adopting a position-relative axiology are examined, and it is suggested that position-relative consequentialism is a promising moral theory that has been underestimated.