The paper describes consequentialist moral justification, comparing it to competing ethical theories, emphasizing expected value as the valid criterion.
The paper describes the commonsense conceptual and substantive foundations of consequentialist, or greater good, moral justifications. It then concisely describes several competing theories and explains why they and other objections do not succeed, leaving comparative overall duly diligently expected value as the sole valid criterion that justifies actions as morally better or worse.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robert R. Dow (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: