4 ‘THE REJECTION OF CONSEQUEN’ ot Thus although an ultimate failure to identify an underlying principled rationale for agent-centred restrictions might not in itself constitute a decisive argument against the res if would indeed provide cause for serious concern. I have no doubt that many readers of these pages will find themselves, as I find myself in certai cular intuitions to which the rest general difficulties encountered in attempting to motivate them, and that these people will continue to accept the restric- tions despite those difficulties. But, at the same time, I hope these readers will also agree that there are reasons to be worried about agent-centred restrictions, and feel challenged to at rationale for the restrictions which has so far eluded our grasp. a THE PROJECT RECONSIDERED. is point. 1 began by taking note of ut persistence face of widespreac iminary way, that the per stem from the fact t moral theo porating the plau: what would lead to the best outcome over logical conceptions, I noted, reject that idea. TI that one is not always required to produce th rs overall, but al sometimes positively impermissible to do so. Given t ¢ plausibility of the idea that one may always do what would have the best outcome, and given the prima-facie diffic with those led to reconsider the reje lore specifica examination of two moral conceptions: hybrid conceptions, which depart from con- sequentialism to the extent of incorporating prerogative, and which agent-centred restrictions, and which thus neither required nor permitted always to do what would have the best outcome. The examination revealed that although both the agent-centred prerogative and agent-centred restrictions‘THE REJECTION OF CONSEQUENTIALISM rationale for the former two sorts of non-conseque: ceptions, they retai ly plausible consequen’ idea that it is always permissible to do what would lead to best overall outcome, while at the same those anti-consequeni well-founded. I concluded that although many people will con: tinue to feel that agent-centred restrictions are indispensab there are good reasons, in the absence of a incip rationale for such restrictions, to worry about the adequacy of moral conceptions that include them, Before resting co h this conclusion, however, important to reconsider the structure of the overall investiga- ion, as just descr fat that tigation itself has not been poorly c agent-centred restrictions might try to sl thas. They might try to show that, for one reason or another, our search for a ration this way to might be argued ns which prol 1 best state of affairs overall herefore nothing troublesome iat search, Bu ersuasively. 1 ig overall states ofall agent-centred restrictions. These claims carefully. ‘Someone who believed that the idea of ranking overall states, of affairs was misguided might argue in the following way. THE PROJECT RECONSIDERED "7 cureare not the sorts of things that ives and there are, ‘An individ ng is suffering, and it cannot change character by virtue of coexisting » ts to other people, balance, or blend the suffering of one person against or with the experi not true: that human pains are personally comparable, and standpoint of eternit ately compensable fi ess to rank overall states of “This argument, that the w i's presupposes a false view about the possibility of inter personal compensation, seems tome unpersuasive. The judge- ate ofallairs is better than another is consistent ‘at some people may sulfer terribly even the better state of affairs. Such a judgement in no way presupposes that those ngs are neutralized, erased, oF Compensated for by virtue of the fact that they form part ofone overall state of affairs that is deemed better than some other overall state of affairs, What such a judgement docs involve is the belief that one overa is better than another, taking fal case some of the harms may not admit of comp heir larger context for the purpose of of alfairs, and since fron attern of harms and sufler and is in no way compensated for lable state of affairs8 ‘THE REJECTION OF CONSEQUENT IsM rationale for preferring a distribution-sensitive ranking pi ple to the principle of comparison employed by classical m. But while there may be disagreements about the ciple to rely on, itis clear cnou ive merits of over of affairs. Indeed, we are required to make them in a circumstances. Some of the most importa choice and social decision revolve around competing judge- ents of this form, and to refrain from making such judgements is (© pretend that there is no ground for preferring any one outcome to any other, frot point of view. Someone who belicved overall states of affairs was misguided might try to argue for tha another way. Consider two states of allairs, A and B, In A, one person dies an undesirable death. In B, five other people die equally undesirable deaths. There are no other relevant differ- ences betw only makes sense to ‘one holds the mistaken bi be summed. ies worse than luals are somehow imes, or five times as Id up toanyone's experi n the loss suffered by someone were experien suffered by any one was a better state of alfai make sense relative to iobody nents of value only he experience of some be Such lseusion Affe 7 (egy): 25-401, a in the exe Charles Fried, Philsopy and Pabicd discussions a This argument, ited principle for ranking overall outcomes, to the ellect that an outcome X is better than an outcome Y if and only if the worst-harmed individual in X is less severely harmed worst-harmed indi n Y2 And to the extent that the order to hold that, other t children are saved from imn ot necessary to illicitly suppose that some multiply emaciated being will starve ten times over if the one child is favoured. Nor does the judgement cease to make sense if it does not rest on position of this kind, It seems not at all senseless should suffer rather rather than fewer. Bette than that a mi receive the benefits 0 protection against polio the common sense,TON OF CONSEQUENTIALISM THE PROJECT RECONSIDERED » states of affairs, the search for a rationale for agent-centred departures from consequent restrictions would still be just as well-motivated as itis other- because consequentialism incorporates the plausible-sounding wise. For the apparently problematic features of such restric- idea that one may always do what would lead to the best overait ions—the features that lend a sense of urgency to the search fc | outcome. For one might just as easily say cs fi a rationale—are independent of the idea of ranking overall fally agent-centred conceptions require special justification states of affairs, and persist even if that idea is rejected. An because such conceptions incorporate the plausible-sounding idea that one n argument might c centred rest 1ot do what would be wrong. Thus, tude, the demand for a rationale for age che agent-centred restriction, as we have seen, isa restr at least sometimes impermissible to vi where doing so would prev ions is not one that those who accept the res of no less weight from an impersonal standp tions need take se prejudi same restriction, or other equally objec ty of where there are considered. And eve 1¢ of thought seems to me mistaki important alfairs is rejected, Nozick’s question si to see exactly where and how it response to agent-centred restrictions irrational? How ea | he argument migh izeits sug for agent-centred restcictions has been because quel ‘ conceptions stand in need of principled mi have been devoting most of my attenti ns_underlying red. restriction ale for the consequen second place, agent-centred rest radoxical features. An though I le considera- fe and agent nate to ask fo ‘To summa states of afl incipled for agen Anyone who hopes to demonstrate that 1 rationale for the cor ndeed, as 1 apparently problematic feature can be described jon for the re ir of irrationalit of right action embodied by those conceptions, and th; departures from < is problematic in its own righ Provides reason enough to ask what the motiv: for agente Ip to say that centred restrictions might beaa THE REJECTION OF CONSEQUE: Isat 1e reasons for seeking le for agent-centred restrictions are paralleled by weighty reasons for seeking a rationale for the con- sequentialist view of right action. Similarly, there is an im= portant difference between the plausible-sounding idea that the argument centred concep have attributed to consequentialism. It is completely tt say lly agent-centred conceptions incorporate the that one must not do what is wrong. Ad! moral concept consequentialist and_non-conseque: that idea; what they disagree about is tl captures what nature and conte | moral conceptions lent on the issues that divide them be associated with any one conception rather It is not similarly trivial to say that ism incorporates the idea that one may always do best overall outcome. For it is not trtie is idea; as we have ‘Thus the conception of conclude, no reason to accept the cl rationale’ fe es out of a prejudic anteced lity of le for agent-centred restrictions ippropriate, it also acknowledges that underlying rationale for the consequenti right has not yet been explicitly examined. And despite the fact that consequentialist moral conceptions do incorporate the plausible idea that one may always do what would lead to the best overall outcome and do not have the paradoxical quality THE PROJ RECONSIDERED ag of fully agent-centred conceptions, it may be thought that it is premature to draw rationale for age: the consequent itmay be available for the restrictions after In order to forestall this sort ofc something explicit about conception of the reasons as follows. The theory of the its starting point the fact that people are not indillerent about what happens in the world; on the contrary, there are happenings ‘need fora conception of the right as people did not make these dis- criminations, and there was thus no way that human actions could cause or constitute occurrences that people regarded as good or bad, then action in the way that a conception of the need for a conception of the right to re arises in about what embody ar nore rational way of ion, which requires effect, to promote world, Different different principles for ranking ov hence embody dillerent concep happen in the world, But all conseq porate the same conception of the ri production of the best overall states of allairs. And the motiva- tion for that conception of the right is that it represents apoints in mind, the ‘sophisticated’ consequent to the natural independence of the pers apter 1ow be put in broader persp: icated consequentialist regards the ‘of view for the influence individual good, and responds by insi agen individuals who are actually a and the degree to which each view of the apparent response 0 personal independence, it was suggested in Chapter ‘Three that the sophisticated consequentialist might propose as a motivation for sophisticated consequentialism as a whole that it embodies a rational strategy for taking account of the nature ofa person as a being with a ‘can see that it would be mislea For the sophisticated conseque: independence i best thing to hav: individuals, properly understood and be advanced to the greatest ext sat a conception of the rig rational way of regulating what happens in the work ultimate motivation for sophisticated consequent it embodies a rational strategy for respons al point of view, but he motivations for its jual good, its account to the natu! ight, as we have now seen, is not t response to any one particular natural but rather that it represents a rati happens in the world, in so faras what happens is wit control. We can now appreciate a fundame difference between THE PROJECT RECONSIDERED 195 the consequent embodied by hyb attempts to re regulate what t conception id of these the conduct of agents will be those hey are, which represent the most rational way of regulating wl , the con- alist reasot -ause people care about what ppens that a couception of the right is needed in the place. So the consequentialist firs fixes on a principle for identi fying the best available states of allairs, or the best available sets of happenin then simply directs agents to do what is in their power to produce those states of affairs or sets of happenings. is wrong-headed to allow the completely determined by an antecedently fixed conception of what the best overall sets of there m hot care about wha conception of the r only isso far as wl happenings that a co depend on the act someone who accepts a hybrid vi on the way in w seek to regulate what ns of human agents. And to , this suggests a constraint jon of the right can virtue than the constant produc best overall sets of happenings of course, those who accept hybrid conceptions believe that, given one con- strual of the importance of the natural independence of the personal point of view, it is rational to allow people to devote energy and attention to their projects and plans out of propor:ves EETION OF CONS! tions seems to me the more appealing of the two, Iwill not try to resolve this dispute between hybrid and consequentialist views. been said by now, I hope, to show that hybrid are worthy of serious attention, and that is what I cated before, it has not be my intention t hybrid conceptions are categorical superior to consequentialist theories. I prefer to leave open the question whether this is so, and with it the question whether itis objectively attempt to identify comprehensible moti features of different types of moral concep argument has been that it is much easi tions I have been very seriously, liar deontological centred conceptior ble for agent-centred restrictions after: assessment of that suggestion that I now turn. 1g motivation for jderation of the rationale for ciples of ly determined by an antecedently fixed conception of what the best overall sets of happenings would be. Both agree that an adequate conception of the right must embody a set of demands that it is reasonable to impose on the conduct of human agents, and that there are THE PROJECT RECONSIDERED a7 features of human agents in virtue of which it is rational to Fequire of them something other than the constant production ofthe best states of affairs. Ifagent-centred restrictions are to be adequately motivated, what needs to be shown is that there is indeed some particular feature of human beings in which itis rational to probibit th to the best outcome over: for the consequentialist conce} in this regard There is, however, one final way in which a defender of agent-centred restrictions that this demand fora . The argue ment might run as is said that the restrictions require a rationale here is something paradoxical about permissible to commit one act of an objectionable type in order to minimize acts of the very same ntred conceptions ion as deter- overall good. wiction that acts of certain types are wrong in and of themselves, and no Consequent thingsas, of themselves. And it is no more appropriate to demand some underlying principled rationale f ciples of right and wron, ‘or exclusively determined by its tendency to advance or defeat the overall good, they do typically regard such tendencies as among the factors that can make an act \s Rawls has said: ‘All ethical doctrines worth consequences8 THE REJECTION OF CONSEQUENTIALISM in judging rightness. One which did not would be nt-centred conceptions ness and wrongness of eto considerations about the goodness and badness of their consequences, itis fair to ask why then, in circumstances where itis apparently irrational to forbid conduct that is guided by the consequences, that is precisely what such conceptions do, Moreover, it does not constitute an adequate answer to question to claim that agent-centred restrictions forbid doing certain things because it is wrong to do those things. It is entirely appropriate to demand some underlying rationale for the restrictions, just as it would indeed be legitimate to seek a rationale for a consequentialist conception of the good Remember that some versions of consequet attempt was made to identify a rationale for the plur: conception of the individual good relied on by that type of ve ranking principle, it was in no way porating an tialist. pr conceptions do. Like fu views do not regard ht action, just as ful agent-centred conceptions, hybrid ightness or wrongness of actions as tendency to promote or under- for agent-centred restrictions. For unless something can be about why c 1d not others are regard such restrict ably tend to appear arbitrary unmotivated, especially in view of their paradoxical air. Thus, if my account in this chapter has been accurate, the demand for a rationale for agent-centred restrictions is not $A Thee of fst 9.30 THE PROJECT RECONSIDERED 129 inappropriate. A carefil reconsideration investigation undertaken in this book has hidden bias against the restric setting aside the results an course of that investigation. rapter as I did the last: by acknowledging that an adequate rationale for agent-centred restrictions st sus, by insi elusiveness of that ratio ind by expressing the hope that of such re the structure of the led to reveal any is, oF any other reason for our moral universe with confidence.