Alternative actions and the spirit of consequentialism

Abstract

The simple idea behind act-consequentialism is that we ought to choose the action whose outcome is better than that of any alternative action. In a recent issue of this journal, Erik Carlson has argued that given a reasonable interpretation of alternative actions this simple idea cannot be upheld but that the new theory he proposes nevertheless preserves the act-consequentialist spirit. My aim in this paper is to show that Carlson is wrong on both counts. His theory, contrary to his own intentions, is not an act-consequentialist theory. By building on a theory formulated by Holly Smith, I will show that the simple idea can be upheld. The new theory I will propose has all the merits of Carlson’s theory without sharing its demerits.