Multiple Moralities: A Game-Theoretic Examination of Indirect Utilitarianism

Abstract

In this paper, we provide a game-theoretic examination of indirect utilitarianism by comparing the expected payoffs of attempts to apply a deontological principle and a utilitarian principle within the context of the Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD). Although many of the best-known utilitarians and consequentialists have accepted some indirect form of their respective views, the results in this paper suggest that they have been overly quick to dismiss altogether the benefits of directly enacting utilitarian principles. We show that for infallible moral agents, what we call ‘non-autonomous agents’, direct utilitarianism dominates indirect utilitarianism via deontology in terms of achieving the maximized utilitarian outcome, but only in underlying games where the maximized utilitarian outcome involves unequal payoffs. In other situations, indirect utilitarianism implemented through Kantian deontology either ties or dominates direct utilitarianism in terms of achieving the maximized utilitarian outcome. We also examine the two different moralities on the assumption that fallibility, which is a form of autonomy, is an aspect of moral agency by introducing Endogenized Morality Models (EMM’s). We believe that just as indirect utilitarians worry about the cost of applying moral principles, so too they should worry about the fact that humans have both pro-social and materialistically selfish motivations and hence are fallible moral agents. We show that there are conditions under which fallible autonomous utilitarians achieve higher expected material and psychic payoffs than fallible autonomous deontologists and conditions under which they do not.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Act Utilitarianism.Ben Eggleston - 2014 - In Ben Eggleston & Dale E. Miller (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism. Cambridge University Press. pp. 125-145.
Two Concepts of Rule Utilitarianism.Rex Martin - 2008 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 5 (2):227-255.
How Indirect Can Indirect Utilitarianism Be?Eric Wiland - 2007 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2):275-301.
Henry Sidgwick's Indirect Utilitarianism.Massimo Renzo - 2008 - Rivista di Filosofia 99 (3):441-466.
Virtue Utilitarianism and the Experience of Ethics.Eugenio Lecaldano - 2008 - Rivista di Filosofia 99 (3):553-576.
Compassionate Utilitarianism: The Unknown Bentham Revealed.Amnon Goldworth - 2002 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 11 (2):191-196.
Utilitarianism: A Standard of Rightness or a Decision Procedure.Joon Ho Kang - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 10:221-228.
Game Theoretic Pragmatics.Michael Franke - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (3):269-284.
Rule utilitarianism and decision theory.JohnC Harsanyi - 1977 - Erkenntnis 11 (1):25 - 53.
Utilitarianism Shot Down by Its Own Men?Tuija Takala - 2003 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 12 (4):447-454.
A game-theoretic analysis on the use of indirect speech acts.M. Zhao - 2018 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 28 (2-3):280-296.
Mill's utilitarianism: Exposition and evaluation.Golam Azam - 2005 - Philosophy and Progress 37:137.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-05-10

Downloads
47 (#251,081)

6 months
12 (#77,436)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Paul Studtmann
Davidson College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references