Aaron Thieme

Sometimes, it may seem that an agent faces an obligation dilemma—a situation in which they cannot fulfill their obligations no matter what they do. However, there are at least three problems for any theory that embraces obligation dilemmas. The logical problem arises from a conflict between obligation dilemmas and venerable principles of deontic logic. The teleological problem arises from a conflict between obligation dilemmas and the compelling thought an agent is obligated to do what would be best. And the practical problem arises from a conflict between believing that one faces an obligation dilemma and making a coherent choice. In this essay I argue that these problems can be solved.

According to the popular counterfactual account of harm and benefit, something benefits (harms) someone just in case it leaves them better (worse) off than they would have been without it. As its name suggests, the counterfactual account foregrounds counterfactual dependence as the guide to the nature of harm and benefit. In spite of this account’s many attractions, it is known to face extensional difficulties in cases of preemption and overdetermination. In this paper, I argue that the true significance of cases of preemption and overdetermination has been overlooked, and I raise a new challenge of preemption and overdetermination. This challenge highlights how metaphysical dependence (i.e., grounding) matters for harm and benefit. I argue that no version of the counterfactual account adequately answers the new challenge, and I defend a novel account that answers the challenge and, in doing so, illuminates the role of grounding in the theory of harm and benefit.

The counterfactual comparative account of harm and benefit (CCA) has faced a barrage of objections from cases involving preemption, overdetermination, and choice. In this paper I provide a unified diagnosis of CCA's vulnerability to these objections: CCA is susceptible to them because it evaluates each act by the same criterion. This is a mistake because, in a sense I make precise, situations raise prudential questions, and only some acts—the relevant alternatives—are directly relevant to these questions. To answer the objections, we must revise CCA so that its evaluations foreground the relevant alternatives. The result is a question‐centered account of harm and benefit.

Objective consequentialism provides a deceptively simple standard for choosing between alternatives: you should perform the best alternative. But sometimes there are different sets of alternatives, and the best alternative in one set is incompatible with the best alternative in another set. So what should you do? This is the classic problem of act versions. In this paper, I argue against the extant candidate solutions to this problem, and I provide a new solution. According to my proposed solution, there is one set of alternatives that is relevant for determining right and wrong. An act is obligatory just in case it is the best relevant alternative, and an act is right just in case it entails the best alternative. This consequentialism resolves the problem of act versions and motivates a weak logic of obligation.

The actualist/possibilist debate concerns whether, when evaluating an agent’s act, we should hold fixed what else they would freely choose to do. While this debate has shaped our deontic theories over the last several decades, it has not had a similar impact on theorizing about harm and benefit. As a result, the leading accounts of harm and benefit accept actualism. I argue that this makes them susceptible to a number of objections that are avoided by turning to possibilism, and I defend a new possibilist account of harm and benefit that fits into a broader, possibilist-friendly picture of how harm and benefit generate reasons.

In this paper, I investigate backward-looking accounts of death's badness. I begin by reviewing deprivationism—the standard, forward-looking account of death's badness. On deprivationism, death is bad for its victims when it deprives them of a good future. This account famously faces two problems—Lucretius’s symmetry problem and the preemption problem. This motivates turning to backward-looking accounts of death's badness on which death is bad for its victim (in a respect) when it involves a decline from a good life. I distinguish three different backward-looking accounts of death's badness in terms of decline, and I argue for the attractiveness of one in particular. I conclude by considering how the backward-looking consideration of decline might factor into our overall account of death's badness.