Can an indirect consequentialist be a real friend?

Abstract

Cocking and Oakley (“Indirect Consequentialism, Friendship, and the Problem of Alienation”, Ethics 106 (October 1995)) claim that a consequentialist’s particular relationships will always be contingent on their maximizing the good, and thus will always be alienated. However, an indirect consequentialist will take into account the fact that her relationships would be alienated were she disposed to terminate them whenever they become suboptimal. If real friendships are worth having, a consequentialist should have them. Thus, she should have a profriendship disposition. Railton’s counterfactual condition should be interpreted as a claim that consequentialists should be disposed to alter that disposition if it turns out that it is not optimal.