Imperfectly right

Abstract

In ethics, maximizing consequentialists claim that the right action is the one that maximizes the best aggregate outcome (such as human welfare), while satisficing consequentialism claims an action is right if it is good enough. Both views face criticism: maximizing consequentialism implies that everyone has acted immorally, which seems absurd, while satisficing consequentialism struggles to determine what counts as a good enough action. The author proposes that moral obligations are not fundamental to moral theory, but are instead constructed at a higher level from relations of value, examining the consequences of this view for the concept of moral wrongness – AI-generated abstract.