This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
30 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Ernest Albee (1901). An Examination of Professor Sidgwick's Proof of Utilitarianism. Philosophical Review 10 (3):251-260.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Richard J. Arneson (2002). The End of Welfare as We Know It? Scanlon Versus Welfarist Consequentialism. Social Theory and Practice 28 (2):315-336.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Elizabeth Ashford (2000). Utilitarianism, Integrity, and Partiality. Journal of Philosophy 97 (8):421-439.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. R. Eugene Bales (1971). Act-Utilitarianism: Account of Right-Making Characteristics or Decision-Making Procedure? American Philosophical Quarterly 8 (3):257 - 265.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Andrew Brennan & Y. S. Lo (2010). Understanding Environmental Philosophy. Acumen.
    Key ideas of environmental philosophy are explained and placed in their broader cultural, religious, historical, political ad philosophical context.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. David Brink (1993). The Separateness of Persons, Distributive Norms, and Moral Theory. In R. G. Frey & Christopher Morris (eds.), Value, Welfare, and Morality. Cambridge University Press. 252-289.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. David O. Brink (1986). Utilitarian Morality and the Personal Point of View. Journal of Philosophy 83 (8):417-438.
    Consideration of the objection from the personal point of view reveals the resources of utilitarianism. The utilitarian can offer a partial rebuttal by distinguishing between criteria of rightness and decision procedures and claiming that, because his theory is a criterion of rightness and not a decision procedure, he can justify agents' differential concern for their own welfare and the welfare of those close to them. The flexibility in utilitarianism's theory of value allows further rebuttal of this objection; objective versions of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Martin Bruder & Tanyi (2014). Overdemanding Consequentialism? An Experimental Approach. Utilitas 26 (3):250-275.
    According to act-consequentialism the right action is the one that produces the best results as judged from an impersonal perspective. Some claim that this requirement is unreasonably demanding and therefore consequentialism is unacceptable as a moral theory. The article breaks with dominant trends in discussing this so-called Overdemandingness Objection. Instead of focusing on theoretical responses, it empirically investigates whether there exists a widely shared intuition that consequentialist demands are unreasonable. This discussion takes the form of examining what people think about (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Richard Yetter Chappell (2013). Value Receptacles. Noûs 47 (3):n/a-n/a.
    Utilitarianism is often rejected on the grounds that it fails to respect the separateness of persons, instead treating people as mere “receptacles of value”. I develop several different versions of this objection, and argue that, despite their prima facie plausibility, they are all mistaken. Although there are crude forms of utilitarianism that run afoul of these objections, I advance a new form of the view—‘token-pluralistic utilitarianism’—that does not.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Michael Cholbi (2014). A Plethora of Promises — or None at All. American Philosophical Quarterly 51 (3):261-272.
    Utilitarians are supposed to have difficulty accounting for our obligation to keep promises. But utilitarians also face difficulties concerning our obligation to make promises. Consider any situation in which the options available to me are acts A, B, C… n, and A is utility maximizing. Call A+ the course of action consisting of A plus my promising to perform A. Since there appear to be a wide range of instances in which A+ has greater net utility then A, utilitarianism obligates (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Rem B. Edwards (1985). J. S. Mill and Robert Veatch's Critique of Utilitarianism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 23 (2):181-200.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Holly Smith Goldman (1980). Rawls and Utilitarianism. In Gene Blocker & Elizabeth Smith (eds.), John Rawls' Theory of Social Justice. Ohio University Press.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Kevin Magill (1998). The Idea of a Justification for Punishment. Critical Review Of International Social And Political Philosophy 1 (1):86-101.
    The argument between retributivists and consequentialists about what morally justifies the punishment of offenders is incoherent. If we were to discover that all of the contending justifications were mistaken, there is no realistic prospect that this would lead us to abandon legal punishment. Justification of words, beliefs and deeds, can only be intelligible on the assumption that if one's justification were found to be invalid and there were no alternative justification, one would be prepared to stop saying, believing or doing (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. H. J. McCloskey (1957). An Examination of Restricted Utilitarianism. Philosophical Review 66 (4):466-485.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Michael Moehler (2013). Contractarian Ethics and Harsanyi's Two Justifications of Utilitarianism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (1):24-47.
    Harsanyi defends utilitarianism by means of an axiomatic proof and by what he calls the 'equiprobability model'. Both justifications of utilitarianism aim to show that utilitarian ethics can be derived from Bayesian rationality and some weak moral constraints on the reasoning of rational agents. I argue that, from the perspective of Bayesian agents, one of these constraints, the impersonality constraint, is not weak at all if its meaning is made precise, and that generally, it even contradicts individual rational agency. Without (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Michael Moehler (2010). The (Stabilized) Nash Bargaining Solution as a Principle of Distributive Justice. Utilitas 22 (4):447-473.
    It is argued that the Nash bargaining solution cannot serve as a principle of distributive justice because (i) it cannot secure stable cooperation in repeated interactions and (ii) it cannot capture our moral intuitions concerning distributive questions. In this article, I propose a solution to the first problem by amending the Nash bargaining solution so that it can maintain stable cooperation among rational bargainers. I call the resulting principle the stabilized Nash bargaining solution. The principle defends justice in the form (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Nikil Mukerji (2013). Utilitarianism. In Christoph Lütge (ed.), Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics. Springer. 297-313.
    This chapter offers a concise discussion of classic utilitarianism which is the prototypical moral doctrine of the utilitarian family. It starts with an analysis of the classic utilitarian criterion of rightness, gives an overview over its virtues and vices, and suggests an overall assessment of its adequacy as a theory of morality. Furthermore, it briefly discusses whether classic utilitarianism holds promise as a philosophy for doing business.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Armin Müller (1933). Die überwindung Des utilitarismus in der biologie der gegenwart. Kant-Studien 38 (1-2):384-405.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Mark T. Nelson (1991). Utilitarian Eschatology. American Philosophical Quarterly 28 (4):339-47.
    Traditional utilitarianism, when applied, implies a surprising prediction about the future, viz., that all experience of pleasure and pain must end once and for all, or infinitely dwindle. Not only is this implication surprising, it should render utilitarianism unacceptable to persons who hold any of the following theses: that evaluative propositions may not imply descriptive, factual propositions; that evaluative propositions may not imply contingent factual propositions about the future; that there will always exist beings who experience pleasure or pain.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Peter Olsthoorn (2011). Intentions and Consequences in Military Ethics. Journal of Military Ethics 10 (2):81-93.
    Utilitarianism is the strand of moral philosophy that holds that judgment of whether an act is morally right or wrong, hence whether it ought to be done or not, is primarily based upon the foreseen consequences of the act in question. It has a bad reputation in military ethics because it would supposedly make military expedience override all other concerns. Given that the utilitarian credo of the greatest happiness for the greatest number is in fact agent-neutral, meaning that the consequences (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Michael Otsuka (2012). Prioritarianism and the Separateness of Persons. Utilitas 24 (03):365-380.
    For a prioritarian by contrast to a utilitarian, whether a certain quantity of utility falls within the boundary of one person's life or another's makes the following moral difference: the worse the life of a person who could receive a given benefit, the stronger moral reason we have to confer this benefit on this person. It would seem, therefore, that prioritarianism succeeds, where utilitarianism fails, to ‘take seriously the distinction between persons’. Yet I show that, contrary to these appearances, prioritarianism (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Douglas W. Portmore (2011). Consequentialism and Moral Rationalism. In Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics. Oxford Univ Pr.
    IN THIS PAPER, I make a presumptive case for moral rationalism: the view that agents can be morally required to do only what they have decisive reason to do, all things considered. And I argue that this view leads us to reject all traditional versions of act‐consequentialism. I begin by explaining how moral rationalism leads us to reject utilitarianism.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Madison Powers (1994). Repugnant Desires and the Two-Tier Conception of Utility. Utilitas 6 (02):171-.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Theron Pummer (2013). Intuitions About Large Number Cases. Analysis 73 (1):37-46.
    Is there some large number of very mild hangnail pains, each experienced by a separate person, which would be worse than two years of excruciating torture, experienced by a single person? Many people have the intuition that the answer to this question is No. However, a host of philosophers have argued that, because we have no intuitive grasp of very large numbers, we should not trust such intuitions. I argue that there is decent intuitive support for the No answer, which (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Wlodek Rabinowicz (2000). Kotarbinski's Early Criticism of Utilitarianism. Utilitas 12 (01):79-.
    Apart from a short introduction, this contribution consists of a translation of Tadeusz Kotarbinski’s “Utilitarianism and The Ethics of Pity” (1914). In that very concise and relatively unknown early note, written before he embarked on his long and influential career as a nominalist logician and philosopher of science, Kotarbinski had formulated four astonishingly ‘modern’ objections to utilitarianism. Unlike Christian ‘ethics of pity’, utilitarian ethics (i) disregards the normative importance of the distinction between preventing suffering and promoting happiness, (ii) leaves no (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Christoph Schmidt-Petri (2006). On an Interpretation of Mill's Qualitative Utilitarianism. Prolegomena 5 (2):165-177.
    This paper is a reply to Jonathan Riley’s criticism of my reading of Mill (both published in the Philosophical Quarterly 2003). I show that Riley’s interpretation has no textual support in Mill’s writing by putting the supposedly supporting quotations in their proper context. Secondly it is demonstrated how my reading is not incompatible with hedonism. Mill’s use of the concepts of ‘quality’, ‘quantity’, and ‘pleasure’ are explained and illustrated. I conclude by considering whether the possible redundancy of Mill’s quality/quantity discussion (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Henry Sidgwick (1877). Mr. Sidgwick on `Ethical Studies'. Mind 2 (5):122-126.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. John Jamieson Carswell Smart & Bernard Williams (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press.
    Two essays on utilitarianism, written from opposite points of view, by J. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams. In the first part of the book Professor Smart advocates a modern and sophisticated version of classical utilitarianism; he tries to formulate a consistent and persuasive elaboration of the doctrine that the rightness and wrongness of actions is determined solely by their consequences, and in particular their consequences for the sum total of human happiness. This is a revised version of Professor Smart's (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. T. L. S. Sprigge (1965). A Utilitarian Reply to Dr. McCloskey. Inquiry 8 (1-4):264 – 291.
    A theory of punishment should tell us not only when punishment is permissible but also when it is a duty. It is not clear whether McCloskey's retributivism is supposed to do this. His arguments against utilitarianism consist largely in examples of punishments unacceptable to the common moral consciousness but supposedly approved of by the consistent utilitarian. We remain unpersuaded to abandon our utilitarianism. The examples are often fanciful in character, a point which (pace McCloskey) does rob them of much of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Carolyn Suchy-Dicey (2009). It Takes Two: Ethical Dualism in the Vegetative State. Neuroethics 2 (3):125-136.
    To aid neuroscientists in determining the ethical limits of their work and its applications, neuroethical problems need to be identified, catalogued, and analyzed from the standpoint of an ethical framework. Many hospitals have already established either autonomy or welfare-centered theories as their adopted ethical framework. Unfortunately, the choice of an ethical framework resists resolution: each of these two moral theories claims priority at the exclusion of the other, but for patients with neurological pathologies, concerns about the patient’s welfare are treated (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation