Ben Eggleston

University of Kansas

Publications

Edited book:

Co-edited books:

Papers:

30. “Introducing Mixed-Strategy Equilibria: Payoffs vs. Probabilities”

Journal of Economics Teaching, vol. 8, no. 2 (2023), pp. 64–71

Students are usually taught to compute mixed-strategy equilibria in 2 × 2 games by determining what mixed strategy each player must play in order for the other player to be indifferent between their own pure strategies, evaluated using expected-utility reasoning. An alternative method, complementing the standard one, draws on each player’s computations of certain disparities between the payoffs he or she may receive, and uses that information to compute the probabilities for the players’ mixed strategies.

http://dx.doi.org/10.58311/jeconteach/779c5977c28fb52f7e046f2355a2288e1fd7c65b

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website. It is open access, but if there is a problem there, here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Introducing_Mixed-Strategy_Equilibria.pdf

29. “Utilitarianism” (bibliography)

Oxford Bibliographies, November 29, 2022

A bibliography with entries grouped into General Overviews, Textbooks and Anthologies, Consequentialism, Well-Being, Act versus Rule Utilitarianism, Two-Level Act Utilitarianism, Satisficing, Other Forms of Utilitarianism, Contrasts with Other Views, Utilitarianism and Rights, Aggregation, The History of Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill, The History of Utilitarianism: Other Figures, and Applications.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780195396577-0431

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Utilitarianism_Bibliography.pdf

28. “Procreation, Carbon Tax, and Poverty: An Act-Consequentialist Climate-Change Agenda”

Moral Theory and Climate Change: Ethical Perspectives on a Warming Planet, edited by Dale E. Miller and Ben Eggleston (Routledge, 2020), pp. 58–77

A book chapter (about 9,000 words, plus references) presenting an act-consequentialist approach to the ethics of climate change. It begins with an overview of act consequentialism, including a description of the view’s principle of rightness (an act is right if and only if it maximizes the good) and a conception of the good focusing on the well-being of sentient creatures and rejecting temporal discounting. Objections to act consequentialism, and replies, are also considered. Next, the chapter briefly suggests that act consequentialism could reasonably be regarded as the default moral theory of climate change, in the sense that a broadly act-consequentialist framework often seems implicit in both scholarly and casual discussions of the ethics of climate change. The remainder of the chapter explores three possible responses to the threat of climate change: having fewer children to reduce the number of people emitting greenhouse gases; taxing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions (commonly called a “carbon tax”) to discourage GHG-emitting behavior; and reducing poverty to lessen personal, familial, and community vulnerability to the harms of climate change.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315205069-4

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Procreation_Carbon_Tax_and_Poverty.pdf

27. “Consequentialism and Respect: Two Strategies for Justifying Act Utilitarianism”

Utilitas, vol. 32, no. 1 (March 2020), pp. 1–18

Most arguments in support of act utilitarianism are elaborations of one of two basic strategies. One is the consequentialist strategy. This strategy relies on the consequentialist premise that an act is right if and only if it produces the best possible consequences and the welfarist premise that the value of a state of affairs is entirely determined by its overall amount of well-being. The other strategy is based on the idea of treating individuals respectfully and resolving conflicts among individuals in whatever way best conforms to that idea. Although both of these strategies can be used to argue for the principle of act utilitarianism, they are significantly different from each other, and these differences cause them to have different strengths and weaknesses. It emerges that which argumentative strategy is chosen by a proponent of act utilitarianism has a large impact on which virtues her view has and which objections it is vulnerable to.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0953820819000086

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Consequentialism_and_Respect.pdf

26. “Toward a Unified Theory of Morality: An Introduction to Part One of Reasons and Persons”

Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons: An Introduction and Critical Inquiry, edited by Andrea Sauchelli (Routledge, 2020), pp. 13–29

A book chapter (about 8,000 words, plus references) summarizing Part One of Reasons and Persons, with particular attention to the Self-interest Theory, Consequentialism, Common-Sense Morality, and how critical scrutiny of Consequentialism and Common-Sense Morality points the way toward a unified theory of morality.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429488450-3

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Toward_a_Unified_Theory_of_Morality.pdf

25. “Decision Theory”

The Cambridge History of Moral Philosophy, edited by Sacha Golob and Jens Timmermann (Cambridge University Press, 2017), pp. 706–717

A book chapter (about 4,000 words, plus references) on decision theory in moral philosophy, with particular attention to uses of decision theory in specifying the contents of moral principles (e.g., expected-value forms of act and rule utilitarianism), uses of decision theory in arguing in support of moral principles (e.g., the hypothetical-choice arguments of Harsanyi and Rawls), and attempts to derive morality from rationality (e.g., the views of Gauthier and McClennen).

Eggleston_Decision_Theory.pdf

This link is to a PDF file containing my paper.

24. “Mill’s Moral Standard”

A Companion to Mill, edited by Christopher Macleod and Dale E. Miller (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2017), pp. 358–373

A book chapter (about 7,000 words, plus references) on the interpretation of Mill’s criterion of right and wrong, with particular attention to act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, and sanction utilitarianism. Along the way, major topics include Mill’s thoughts on liberalism, supererogation, the connection between wrongness and punishment, and breaking rules when doing so will produce more happiness than complying with them will.

Eggleston_Mill's_Moral_Standard.pdf

This link is to a PDF file containing my paper.

23. “The Number of Preference Orderings: A Recursive Approach”

The Mathematical Gazette, vol. 99, no. 544 (March 2015), pp. 21–32

This article discusses approaches to the problem of the number of preference orderings that can be constructed from a given set of alternatives. After briefly reviewing the prevalent approach to this problem, which involves determining a partitioning of the alternatives and then a permutation of the partitions, this article explains a recursive approach and shows it to have certain advantages over the partitioning one.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/mag.2014.3

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_The_Number_of_Preference_Orderings.pdf

22. “Accounting for the Data: Intuitions in Moral Theory Selection”

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 17, no. 4 (August 2014), pp. 761–774

Reflective equilibrium is often credited with extending the idea of accounting for the data from its familiar home in the sciences to the realm of moral philosophy. But careful consideration of the main concepts of this idea – the data to be accounted for and the kind of accounting it is appropriate to expect of a moral theory – leads to a revised understanding of the “accounting for the data” perspective as it applies to the discipline of moral theory selection. This revised understanding is in tension with reflective equilibrium and actually provides more support for the alternative method of moral theory selection that I have called ‘practical equilibrium’.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10677-013-9478-4

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Accounting_for_the_Data.pdf

21. “Act Utilitarianism”

The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism, edited by Ben Eggleston and Dale E. Miller (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 125–145

https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCO9781139096737.007

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Act_Utilitarianism.pdf

20. “Introduction”

(co-authored with Dale E. Miller)

The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism, edited by Ben Eggleston and Dale E. Miller (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 1–15

https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCO9781139096737.001

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_and_Miller_CCU_Introduction.pdf

19. “Adjudication”

The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Utilitarianism, edited by James E. Crimmins (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013), pp. 6–8

Eggleston_Adjudication_(from_Bloomsbury_Encyclopedia_of_Utilitarianism).pdf

This link is to a PDF file containing my paper.

18. “Paradox of Happiness”

The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, edited by Hugh LaFollette (Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2013), pp. 3794–3799

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee202

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Paradox_of_Happiness.pdf

17. “Rejecting the Publicity Condition: The Inevitability of Esoteric Morality”

The Philosophical Quarterly vol. 63, no. 250 (January 2013), pp. 29–57

It is often thought that some version of what is generally called the publicity condition is a reasonable requirement to impose on moral theories. In this article, after formulating and distinguishing three versions of the publicity condition, I argue that the arguments typically used to defend them are unsuccessful and, moreover, that even in its most plausible version, the publicity condition ought to be rejected as both question-begging and unreasonably demanding.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2012.00106.x

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Rejecting_the_Publicity_Condition.pdf

16. “Utilitarianism”

The Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, 2^nd edition, edited by Ruth Chadwick (Elsevier, 2012), vol. 4, pp. 452–458

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373932-2.00220-9

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Utilitarianism.pdf

15. “Rules and Their Reasons: Mill on Morality and Instrumental Rationality”

John Stuart Mill and the Art of Life, edited by Ben Eggleston, Dale E. Miller, and David Weinstein (Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 71–93

This chapter addresses the question of what role Mill regards rules as playing in the determination of morally permissible action by drawing on his remarks about instrumentally rational action. First, overviews are provided of consequentialist theories and of the rule-worship or incoherence objection to rule-consequentialist theories. Then a summary is offered of the considerable textual evidence suggesting that Mill’s moral theory is, in fact, a rule-consequentialist one. It is argued, however, that passages in the final chapter of A System of Logic suggest that Mill anticipates and endorses the rule-worship or incoherence objection to rule-consequentialist theories. The chapter concludes by exploring some ways in which this tension in Mill’s thought might be resolved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381245.003.0004

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Rules_and_Their_Reasons.pdf

14. “Introduction”

(co-authored with Dale E. Miller and David Weinstein)

John Stuart Mill and the Art of Life, edited by Ben Eggleston, Dale E. Miller, and David Weinstein (Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 3–18

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381245.003.0001

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_and_Miller_JSMAL_Introduction.pdf

13. “Practical Equilibrium: A Way of Deciding What to Think about Morality”

Mind vol. 119, no. 475 (July 2010), pp. 549–584

Practical equilibrium, like reflective equilibrium, is a way of deciding what to think about morality. It shares with reflective equilibrium the general thesis that there is some way in which a moral theory must, in order to be acceptable, answer to one’s moral intuitions, but it differs from reflective equilibrium in its specification of exactly how a moral theory must answer to one’s intuitions. Whereas reflective equilibrium focuses on a theory’s consistency with those intuitions, practical equilibrium also gives weight to a theory’s approval of one’s having those intuitions.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzq036

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Practical_Equilibrium.pdf

12. “The Problem of Rational Compliance with Rules”

The Journal of Value Inquiry vol. 43, no. 1 (March 2009), pp. 19–32

The problem of rational compliance with rules is the problem of how it can be rational for an agent to follow a rule with a purely consequentialist justification in a case in which she knows that she can do more good by breaking it. This paper discusses two ways in which responses to this problem can fail to address it, using Alan Goldman’s article “The Rationality of Complying with Rules: Paradox Resolved” as a case study.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10790-008-9143-7

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_The_Problem_of_Rational_Compliance_with_Rules.pdf

11. “Mill’s Misleading Moral Mathematics”

(co-authored with Dale E. Miller)

Southwest Philosophy Review vol. 24, no. 1 (January 2008), pp. 153–161

The debate over whether Mill is better read as an act or a rule utilitarian began in the 1950s and has continued ever since. We argue that in certain passages in which Mill initially appears to be endorsing the act-utilitarian moral theory, he is really doing something quite different. Insofar as he is endorsing any particular view at all, it is not act utilitarianism – nor is it even a moral theory. Instead, it is a view about how to assess individual actions that informs, but does not translate without modification into, Mill’s rule-utilitarian moral theory.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/swphilreview200824131

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_and_Miller_Mill's_Misleading_Moral_Mathematics.pdf

10. “Genetic Discrimination in Health Insurance: An Ethical and Economic Analysis”

The Human Genome Project in College Curriculum: Ethical Issues and Practical Strategies, edited by Aine Donovan and Ronald M. Green (University Press of New England, 2008), pp. 46–57

Current research on the human genome holds enormous long-term promise for improvements in health care, but it poses an immediate ethical challenge in the area of health insurance, by raising the question of whether insurers should be allowed to take genetic information about customers into account in the setting of premiums. It is widely held that such discrimination is immoral and ought to be illegal, and the prevalence of this view is understandable, given the widespread belief, which I endorse, that every individual in a society as affluent as ours has a basic right to affordable health care. But prohibiting genetic discrimination in health insurance is not an effective way to protect this right. On the contrary, I argue that because of the nature of insurance as a product sold in a competitive market, such a prohibition is misguided, and its worthy aims must, instead, be pursued through reforms in our country’s system of publicly provided health care.

Eggleston_Genetic_Discrimination_in_Health_Insurance.pdf

This link is to a PDF file containing my paper.

9. “Conflicts of Rules in Hooker’s Rule-Consequentialism”

Canadian Journal of Philosophy vol. 37, no. 3 (September 2007), pp. 329–349

In his recent book Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-consequentialist Theory of Morality, Brad Hooker recognizes that his theory, like most rule-consequentialist theories, must answer the question of how agents are to resolve conflicts that may arise among the rules his theory endorses. Here I examine Hooker’s answer to this question, and I argue that his answer fails to solve a serious problem that arises from such conflicts.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/cjp.2007.0026

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Conflicts_of_Rules_in_Hooker's_Rule-Consequentialism.pdf

8. “India House Utilitarianism: A First Look”

(co-authored with Dale E. Miller)

Southwest Philosophy Review vol. 23, no. 1 (January 2007), pp. 39–47

Among the most thoroughly debated interpretive questions about the moral philosophy of John Stuart Mill is whether he should be understood as an act utilitarian or as an ideal-code rule utilitarian. We argue that neither of these interpretations fits the textual evidence as well as does a novel view we call ‘India House utilitarianism’. On this view, an act is right if and only if it is not forbidden by the code of rules the agent is justified in believing to be the one, of those she can reasonably be expected to be aware of, whose general acceptance would produce the most happiness.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/swphilreview20072314

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_and_Miller_India_House_Utilitarianism_A_First_Look.pdf

7. “Reformulating Consequentialism: Railton’s Normative Ethics”

Philosophical Studies vol. 126, no. 3 (December 2005), pp. 449–462

A critical examination of the chapters on normative ethics in Peter Railton’s Facts, Values, and Norms: Essays Toward a Morality of Consequence. It is argued that Railton’s theory of sophisticated consequentialism effectively handles issues of pollution and moral dilemma that Railton discusses, and that Railton’s more recent proposal of “valoric consequentialism,” if coupled with a non-act-utilitarian standard of rightness of the kind Railton discusses, is vulnerable to objections to which sophisticated consequentialism is immune.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-2315-4

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Reformulating_Consequentialism.pdf

The publisher’s page for Railton’s reply to my paper is here:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-2320-7

6. “The Ineffable and the Incalculable: G. E. Moore on Ethical Expertise”

Ethics Expertise: History, Contemporary Perspectives, and Applications, edited by Lisa Rasmussen (Springer, 2005), pp. 89–102

According to G. E. Moore, ethical expertise requires abilities of several kinds: (1) the ability to factor judgments of right and wrong into (a) judgments of good and bad and (b) judgments of cause and effect, (2) the ability to use intuition to make the requisite judgments of good and bad, and (3) the ability to use empirical investigation to make the requisite judgments of cause and effect. Moore’s conception of ethical expertise is thus extremely demanding, but he supplements it with some very simple practical guidance.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3820-8_6

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_The_Ineffable_and_the_Incalculable.pdf

5. “Procedural Justice in Young’s Inclusive Deliberative Democracy”

Journal of Social Philosophy vol. 35, no. 4 (Winter 2004), pp. 544–549

In her book Inclusion and Democracy, Iris Marion Young offers a defense of a certain model of deliberative democracy and argues that political institutions that conform to this model are just. I argue that Young gives two contradictory accounts of why such institutions are just, and I weigh the relative merits of two ways in which this contradiction can be resolved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2004.00253.x

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Procedural_Justice_in_Young's_Inclusive_Deliberative_Democracy.pdf

4. “Everything Is What It Is, and Not Another Thing: Comments on Austin”

Southwest Philosophy Review vol. 19, no. 2 (July 2003), pp. 101–105

In his paper defending ethical intuitionism, Michael W. Austin offers a reply to W. D. Hudson’s objection that to say that one knows something by intuition is not really to explain how one knows it at all. I press Hudson’s objection against Austin and argue that the responses suggested by Austin’s paper are either inadequate or unavailable to a genuine ethical intuitionist.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/swphilreview200319242

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Everything_Is_What_It_Is.pdf

3. “Does Participation Matter? An Inconsistency in Parfit’s Moral Mathematics”

Utilitas vol. 15, no. 1 (March 2003), pp. 92–105

Consequentialists typically think that the moral quality of one’s conduct depends on the difference one makes. But consequentialists may also think that even if one is not making a difference, the moral quality of one’s conduct can still be affected by whether one is participating (even if only ineffectually, or redundantly) in an endeavor that does make a difference. Derek Parfit discusses this issue – the moral significance of what I call ‘participation’ – in the chapter of Reasons and Persons that he devotes to what he calls ‘moral mathematics’. In my paper, I expose an inconsistency in Parfit’s discussion of moral mathematics by showing how it gives conflicting answers to the question of whether participation matters. I conclude by showing how an appreciation of Parfit’s error sheds some light on consequentialist thought generally, and on the debate between act and rule consequentialists specifically.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0953820800003794

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Does_Participation_Matter.pdf

2. “The Toxin and the Tyrant: Two Tests for Gauthier’s Theory of Rationality”

Twentieth-Century Values (Conference on Value Inquiry, 2002, published online), edited by Kenneth F. T. Cust

Eggleston_The_Toxin_and_the_Tyrant.pdf

This link is to a PDF file containing my paper. The website where the book was published was not maintained.

1. “Should Consequentialists Make Parfit’s Second Mistake? A Refutation of Jackson”

Australasian Journal of Philosophy vol. 78, no. 1 (March 2000), pp. 1–15

Frank Jackson claims that consequentialists should hold the view that Derek Parfit labels the second ‘mistake in moral mathematics’, which is the view that “If some act is right or wrong because of … effects, the only relevant effects are the effects of this particular act.” But each of the three arguments that Jackson offers is unsound. The root of the problem is that in order to argue for the conclusion Jackson aims to establish (that consequentialists should not regard the second “mistake” as a mistake), one must presuppose an overly narrow, and hence distorted, understanding of what consequentialism is.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048400012349301

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_Should_Consequentialists_Make_Parfit's_First_Mistake.pdf

Book reviews:

10. Review of Concern, Respect, and Cooperation, by Garrett Cullity

Australasian Journal of Philosophy vol. 97, no. 4 (December 2019), pp. 836–839

https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2019.1577471

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_review_of_Cullity_Concern_Respect_and_Cooperation.pdf

9. Review of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty

Utilitas vol. 27, no. 2 (June 2015), pp. 254–256

In this review, I recount some of the media attention this book received when published, summarize its main points, and recommend that readers skip all but one chapter of it and use a journal article co-authored by Piketty as a substitute for the rest of it.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0953820815000114

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_review_of_Piketty_Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century.pdf

8. Review of An Introduction to Decision Theory, by Martin Peterson

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, January 5, 2010

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=18447

7. Review of The Demands of Consequentialism, by Tim Mulgan

Utilitas vol. 21, no. 1 (March 2009), pp. 123–125

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0953820808003403

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_review_of_Mulgan_The_Demands_of_Consequentialism.pdf

6. Review of An Introduction to Mill’s Utilitarian Ethics, by Henry West

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, June 5, 2004

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1443

5. Review of Practical Rules: When We Need Them and When We Don’t, by Alan H. Goldman

Utilitas vol. 16, no. 1 (March 2004), pp. 113–115

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0953820803231137

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_review_of_Goldman_Practical_Rules.pdf

4. Review of Sorting Out Ethics, by R. M. Hare

Mind vol. 109, no. 436 (October 2000), pp. 930–933

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/109.436.855

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. (If you access this item, note that it contains multiple book reviews, not just my review.) Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_review_of_Hare_Sorting_Out_Ethics.pdf

3. Review of Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Mill on Utilitarianism, by Roger Crisp; Utilitarianism, by Geoffrey Scarre; and Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism, by William H. Shaw

Mind vol. 109, no. 436 (October 2000), pp. 873–879

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/109.436.855

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. (If you access this item, note that it contains multiple book reviews, not just my review of these three books.) Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_review_of_Crisp_Scarre_and_Shaw.pdf

2. Review of Ethics: The Big Questions, edited by James P. Sterba

APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy vol. 99, no. 2 (Spring 2000), pp. 273–274

Eggleston_review_of_Sterba_Ethics_The_Big_Questions.pdf

1. Review of Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics, by L. W. Sumner

International Journal of Philosophical Studies vol. 7, no. 2 (June 1999), pp. 270–272

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096725599341929

The link above is to a page at the publisher’s website, where the full text may be gated. (If you access this item, note that it contains multiple book reviews, not just my review.) Here is a separate copy:

Eggleston_review_of_Sumner_Welfare_Happiness_and_Ethics.pdf

Dissertation:

Self-Defeat, Publicity, and Incoherence: Three Criteria for Consequentialist Theories

My dissertation, which I defended on December 18, 2001, is in the electronic holdings of the University of Pittsburgh library system. Here’s its page there, including an abstract of it:

http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/7723/

Once you go to that page, which will open in a new window, you can click on a link that will download the file containing my dissertation.

I’ve also downloaded the file myself, and put a copy of it below, as a backup to the copy in Pitt’s holdings:

spi.pdf   (1.25 MB)

Chapter IV of my dissertation, on the publicity condition, forms the basis for much of my article “Rejecting the Publicity Condition: The Inevitability of Esoteric Morality,” published in The Philosophical Quarterly vol. 63, no. 250 (January 2013), pp. 29–57. A link to this article is above, in the “Papers” section of this page.