The misapplication dilemma

Bibliographic Data

ID21364030
AuthorsDaniel Webber (0000-0002-0215-0382, Stanford University Stanford California USA, corresponding author)
Year2024
Volume58
Issue4
Pages973-996
Publication date2024-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueNoûs (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0029-4624 • E-ISSN: 1468-0068
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/nous.12485
OpenAlexW4390364934
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited26

When policymakers craft rules for use by the general public, they must take into account the ways in which their rules are likely to be misapplied. Should contractualists and rule consequentialists do the same when they search for rules whose general acceptance would be non‐rejectable or ideal? I argue that these theorists face a dilemma. If they ignore the possibility of misapplication, they end up with an unrealistic view that rejects rules designed to protect us from others’ mistakes. On the other hand, if they take misapplication into account, they end up rejecting rules that appeal to what really matters morally in favor of easier‐to‐apply proxies for these rules. This leaves them unable to say why certain wrong acts are wrong, which in turn may lead them to mistaken verdicts about moral worth and wronging. I show how this misapplication dilemma applies to standard contractualist and rule consequentialist theories, but also suggest how it might generalize to other two‐level theories, including those designed to avoid the ideal world objection

Appeal · Consequentialism · Craft · Dilemma · Economics · Epistemology · Face (sociological concept) · Ideal (ethics) · Law and economics · Political science · Free Will and Agency · Law · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics