Abstract

According to the Gradualist Dutilitarian Project, the moral theory that we have most reason to adopt in order to make progress in moral philosophy emanates from a conjunction of two claims: (1) Dutilitarianism, the claim that what makes an action right or wrong depends on both consequences and deontological concerns; and (2) Gradualism, the view that moral rightness and wrongness come in degrees. Peterson’s argument for the Gradualist Dutilitarian Project is based on the Conditional Rescue Claim, which states that if you believe in Dutilitarianism, then you ought to believe in Gradualism — because Gradualism is necessary to make Dutilitarianism internally coherent when faced with a challenging result developed within an Arrowian framework. I will argue that the argument for the Conditional Rescue Claim fails. By carefully distinguishing between two ways of individuating theories, as well as between theories and classes of theories, the apparent incompatibility between the Arrowian result and the guiding idea of Dutilitarianism (as being a compromise) disappears.