“By this do you mean they propose a broader consequentialism including justice etc.?”
More than that, most academic philosophers working in ethics are not consequentialist:
Deontology (35.3%)
Other (29.5%)
Consequentialism (23.0%)
Virtue ethics (12.2%)
(These numbers are “accept or lean towards” so a greater number of these will be not strictly or purely utilitarian no doubt.
Philosophers overall were not much more consequentialist, though they were a bit less deontological and more ‘other.’
Accept or lean toward: deontology 49 / 139 (35.3%)
Other 41 / 139 (29.5%)
Accept or lean toward: consequentialism 32 / 139 (23.0%)
Accept or lean toward: virtue ethics 17 / 139 (12.2%)
Fwiw I went my whole Philosophical career without knowingly meeting any other person who was a utilitarian (and I was actively seeking them out) which was pretty isolating to say the least.
When I was at grad school for legal&political science the main way I encountered utilitarianism was as a bogeyman in legal/political/social science papers. Though limited to my own experience and universities I visited—my overwhelming impression is that in most policy connected academic disciplines not specifically housed in dedicated philosophy departments utilitarianism is mostly used as a signalling slur in similar way to a word like “neoliberalism” is and is not considered a respectable “thing” to identify as.
From David Chalmers’ site, a guide to philosophical terms:
Utilitarian: one who believes that the morally right action is the one with the best consequences, so far as the distribution of happiness is concerned; a creature generally believed to be endowed with the propensity to ignore their own drowning children in order to push buttons which will cause mild sexual gratification in a warehouse full of rabbits
“By this do you mean they propose a broader consequentialism including justice etc.?”
More than that, most academic philosophers working in ethics are not consequentialist: Deontology (35.3%) Other (29.5%) Consequentialism (23.0%) Virtue ethics (12.2%) (These numbers are “accept or lean towards” so a greater number of these will be not strictly or purely utilitarian no doubt. Philosophers overall were not much more consequentialist, though they were a bit less deontological and more ‘other.’ Accept or lean toward: deontology 49 / 139 (35.3%) Other 41 / 139 (29.5%) Accept or lean toward: consequentialism 32 / 139 (23.0%) Accept or lean toward: virtue ethics 17 / 139 (12.2%)
Fwiw I went my whole Philosophical career without knowingly meeting any other person who was a utilitarian (and I was actively seeking them out) which was pretty isolating to say the least.
When I was at grad school for legal&political science the main way I encountered utilitarianism was as a bogeyman in legal/political/social science papers. Though limited to my own experience and universities I visited—my overwhelming impression is that in most policy connected academic disciplines not specifically housed in dedicated philosophy departments utilitarianism is mostly used as a signalling slur in similar way to a word like “neoliberalism” is and is not considered a respectable “thing” to identify as.
From David Chalmers’ site, a guide to philosophical terms:
Utilitarian: one who believes that the morally right action is the one with the best consequences, so far as the distribution of happiness is concerned; a creature generally believed to be endowed with the propensity to ignore their own drowning children in order to push buttons which will cause mild sexual gratification in a warehouse full of rabbits