Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
When several agents together produce suboptimal outcomes, yet no individual could have made a difference for the better, Act Consequentialism counterintuitively judges that all involved agents act rightly. I address this problem by supplementing Act Consequentialism with a requirement of modal robustness: Agents not only ought to produce best consequences in the actual world, but they also ought to be such that they would act optimally in certain counterfactual scenarios. I interpret this Modally Robust Act Consequentialism as Act Consequentialism plus a requirement of moral virtue, namely, to reliably act rightly and to act rightly for the right reasons.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Felix Pinkert (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: