Human Nature and the Best Consequentialist Moral System
49 Pages Posted: 18 Mar 2002
Date Written: February 2002
Abstract
In this article, we ask what system of moral rules would be best from a consequentialist perspective, given certain aspects of human nature. This question is of inherent conceptual interest and is important to explore in order better to understand the moral systems that we observe and to illuminate longstanding debates in moral theory. We make what seem to be plausible assumptions about aspects of human nature and the moral sentiments and then derive conclusions about the optimal consequentialist moral system - concerning which acts should be deemed right and wrong, and to what degree. We suggest that our results have some correspondence with observed moral systems and also help to clarify certain points of disagreement among moral theorists.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Economic Analysis of Welfare Economics, Morality and the Law
-
Any Non-Welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle: Reply
By Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell
-
Moral Rules and the Moral Sentiments: Toward a Theory of an Optimal Moral System
By Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell
-
Moral Rules and the Moral Sentiments: Toward a Theory of an Optimal Moral System
By Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell
-
Fairness Versus Welfare: Notes on the Pareto Principle, Preferences, and Distributive Justice
By Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell
-
Fairness Versus Welfare: Notes on the Pareto Principle, Preferences, and Distributive Justice
By Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell
-
Principles of Fairness Versus Human Welfare: On the Evaluation of Legal Policy
By Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell
-
The Conflict between Notions of Fairness and the Pareto Principle
By Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell
-
The Conflict between Notions of Fairness and the Pareto Principle
By Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell