Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 7
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Feyen, Stef 2015. “Ought Implies Can” and Dogmatic Inquiry: Some Reflections on the Methodology of Legal Scholarship?. Rechtstheorie, Vol. 46, Issue. 4, p. 425.

    Francés-Gómez, Pedro Sacconi, Lorenzo and Faillo, Marco 2015. Experimental economics as a method for normative business ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 24, p. S41.

    Kim, Tae Wan Monge, Rosemarie and Strudler, Alan 2015. Bounded Ethicality and The Principle That “Ought” Implies “Can”. Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 25, Issue. 03, p. 341.

    O’Donohue, William T. 2015. Oppression, Privilege, Bias, Prejudice, and Stereotyping: Problems in the APA Code of Ethics. Ethics & Behavior, p. 1.

    Schroth, Jörg 2008. Distributive Justice and Welfarism in Utilitarianism. Inquiry, Vol. 51, Issue. 2, p. 123.

    Oughton, Deborah 2003. Protection of the environment from ionising radiation: ethical issues. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, Vol. 66, Issue. 1-2, p. 3.

    Tsesis, Alexander 2003. Contextualizing Bias Crimes: A Social and Theoretical Perspective. Law <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&amp;"/> Social Inquiry, Vol. 28, Issue. 1, p. 315.


The Human Good and the Ambitions of Consequentialism

  • James Griffin (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 January 2009

I want to look at one aspect of the human good: how it serves as the basis for judgments about the moral right. One important view is that the right is always derived from the good. I want to suggest that the more one understands the nature of the human good, the more reservations one has about that view.

I. OneRoute toConsequentialism

Many of us think that different things make a life good, with no one deep value underlying them all. My own list includes: enjoyment, accomplishing something with one's life, deep personal relations, certain sorts of understanding, and the elements of a characteristically human existence (autonomy, liberty).

Most of us also think that moral right and wrong are based, in some way or other, in how well individual lives go, and that the moral point of view is, in some sense or other, impartial between lives. Utilitarianism is a prominent, but not the only, way of spelling out this intuition. There is no reason why an account of the human good needs to be confined, in the classical utilitarian way, to happiness or to fulfillment of desire (on the usual understanding of that notion). Nor is there any reason why impartiality has to be confined to maximizing the good, counting everybody for one and nobody for more than one. We may generalize.

Let us broaden the notion of the good. We might say, for instance, that though happiness is a good, so are the other items on my list. But though broadened, this notion of the good stays within the confines of individual goods; it still has to do with human well-being, with what promotes the quality of one person's life.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Social Philosophy and Policy
  • ISSN: 0265-0525
  • EISSN: 1471-6437
  • URL: /core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *