Satisficing consequentialism

Abstract

This paper draws a distinction between optimizing and satisficing forms of consequentialism. It argues that narrow-scope consequentialism supports maximizing only, while wide-scope consequentialism does not necessarily prohibit satisficing. It then defends two theses: (A) that there are good (if inconclusive) reasons for a wide-scope consequentialist to prefer a satisficing to a maximizing policy; and (B) that unless some such reason obtains, satisficing is an irrational policy for anyone, consequentialist or not, to prefer. By advancing these arguments, the paper aims to vindicate satisficing consequentialism and emphasize its viability as a genuine alternative to prevalent consequentialist views. – AI-generated abstract.