Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
Consequentialist moral theories are often criticized for the degree of personal sacrifice they seem to require, on the part of some, in order to improve the lives of others. Life-changing self-sacrifice, it is often thought, may be laudable, but it is not morally required. Tim Mulgan believes that this 'demandingness' objection has force against many forms of consequentialism, but that it is possible to develop a consequentialist moral theory that answers this objection and, moreover, is superior, all things considered, to the currently prominent consequentialist moral theories.
Mulgan calls his theory 'Combined Consequentialism', because it is a combination of several different consequentialist theoretical structures. The components of Combined Consequentialism are based on the concept of the moral community - those of us who are 'comparatively equal moral agents who can interact in mutually advantageous ways in pursuit of their goals' - which in turn informs the distinction between two 'realms of moral choice' (p. 172). In the realm of necessity, active members of the moral community decide whether to enable those excluded from the moral community to participate in it (such as by meeting their most urgent needs); and in the realm of reciprocity, active members of the moral community decide how to interact with one another, more in the pursuit of their respective goals than in the meeting of needs (p. 172). When we face decisions within the realm of necessity, an act-consequentialist maximization of overall good is the correct approach. But in the realm of reciprocity, a rule-consequentialist theory, such as that advocated by Brad Hooker, is...