Good and bad actions

Abstract

It is usually assumed to be possible, and sometimes even desirable, for consequentialists to make judgments about both the rightness and the goodness of actions. I argue both that consequentialism cannot provide a satisfactory account of the goodness of actions, on the most natural approach to the question, and that, strictly speaking, a consequentialist cannot judge one action to be better or worse than another action performed at a different time or by a different person. Even if such theories are thought to be primarily concerned with rightness, this would be surprising, but in the light of recent work challenging the place of rightness in consequentialism it seems particularly disturbing. However, I argue that consequentialism is actually strengthened by the realization that actions can only be judged as better or worse than possible alternatives.