This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Subcategories:
290 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 290
Material to categorize
  1. Matthew D. Adler, Happiness Surveys and Public Policy: What's the Use?
    This Article provides a comprehensive, critical overview of proposals to use happiness surveys for steering public policy. Happiness or “subjective well-being” surveys ask individuals to rate their present happiness, life-satisfaction, affective state, etc. A massive literature now engages in such surveys or correlates survey responses with individual attributes. And, increasingly, scholars argue for the policy relevance of happiness data: in particular, as a basis for calculating aggregates such as “gross national happiness,” or for calculating monetary equivalents for non-market goods based (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. David Alm (2008). Consequentialism and the Autonomy of the Deontic. Utilitas 20 (2):199-216.
    I distinguish between two forms of consequentialism: reductionist and anti-reductionist. Reductionist consequentialism holds that the deontic properties of rightness and wrongness are identical with the axiological properties of optimality and suboptimality, respectively. Anti-reductionist consequentialism denies this identification, hence accepting what I call the autonomy of the deontic. In this article I ignore reductionist consequentialism. Instead I argue that anti-reductionist consequentialism is deeply problematic or even incoherent. Simply put, the main point is that the criterion of rightness of any ethical theory (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. John Anderson (1945). Ii. The One Good. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 23 (1-3):85 – 89.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Linda F. Annis (1986). Merit Pay, Utilitarianism, and Desert. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 3 (1):33-41.
  5. David Archard (1994). For Our Own Good. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72 (3):283 – 293.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. M. C. D' Arcy (1932). The Good and the Right. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 32:171.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Robert Arp (2011). What's Good on TV. John Wiley & Sons.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Gustaf Arrhenius (2003). Feldman's Desert-Adjusted Utilitarianism and Population Ethics. Utilitas 15 (02):225-.
    Fred Feldman has proposed a desert-adjusted version of utilitarianism, , as a plausible population axiology. Among other things, he claims that justicism avoids Derek Parfit's . This paper explains the theory and tries to straighten out some of its ambiguities. Moreover, it is shown that it is not clear whether justicism avoids the repugnant conclusion and that it is has other counter-intuitive implications. It is concluded that justicism is not convincing as a population axiology.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Robert Audi (2009). Toward the Good. In Harvey Siegel (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education. Oxford University Press. 333.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Robert Audi (2007). The Good in the Right. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (1):250-261.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Jovan Babić (2007). The Good Will. Theoria 50 (4):7-20.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Claudia Baracchi (2004). One Good. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 25 (2):19-49.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Michael Beaty (1989). On God, the Good, and the Right. Southwest Philosophy Review 5 (2):25-35.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. George Beiswanger (1950). Right Against Good. Ethics 60 (2):112-119.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Yitzhak Benbaji (2005). The Doctrine of Sufficiency: A Defence. Utilitas 17 (3):310-332.
    This article proposes an analysis of the doctrine of sufficiency. According to my reading, the doctrine's basic positive claim is ‘prioritarian’: benefiting x is of special moral importance where (and only where) x is badly off. Its negative claim is anti-egalitarian: most comparative facts expressed by statements of the type ‘x is worse off than y’ have no moral significance at all. This contradicts the ‘classical’ priority view according to which, although equality per se does not matter, whenever x is (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Selim Berker (2013). The Rejection of Epistemic Consequentialism. Philosophical Issues 23 (1):363-387.
    A quasi-sequel to "Epistemic Teleology and the Separateness of Propositions." Covers some of the same ground, but also extends the basic argument in an important way.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Brian Berkey (2012). Review of Gary E. Varner, Personhood, Ethics, and Animal Cognition: Situating Animals in Hare's Two-Level Utilitarianism. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Greg Bognar (2012). Empirical and Armchair Ethics. Utilitas 24 (04):467-482.
    In a recent paper, Michael Otsuka and Alex Voorhoeve present a novel argument against prioritarianism. The argument takes its starting point from empirical surveys on people's preferences in health care resource allocation problems. In this article, I first question whether the empirical findings support their argument, and then I make some general points about the use of ‘empirical ethics’ in ethical theory.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. E. J. Bond (1992). Theories of the Good. In Lawrence C. Becker & Charlotte B. Becker (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Ethics. Garland Publishing Inc.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Nick Bostrom (2009). Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development. Utilitas 15 (03):308-.
    With very advanced technology, a very large population of people living happy lives could be sustained in the accessible region of the universe. For every year that development of such technologies and colonization of the universe is delayed, there is therefore an opportunity cost: a potential good, lives worth living, is not being realized. Given some plausible assumptions, this cost is extremely large. However, the lesson for utilitarians is not that we ought to maximize the pace of technological development, but (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Stephen G. Boyce (1991). The Good Old New Forestry. BioScience 41 (2):67-67.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Michael Bradie (2004). Without Good Reason. International Studies in Philosophy 36 (4):131-132.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Hugh Breakey (2009). The Epistemic and Informational Requirements of Utilitarianism. Utilitas 21 (1):72-99.
    A recurring objection confronting utilitarianism is that its dictates require information that lies beyond the bounds of human epistemic wherewithal. Utilitarians require reliable knowledge of the social consequences of various policies, and of people’s preferences and utilities. Agreeing partway with the sceptics, I concur that the general rules-of-thumb offered by social science do not provide sufficient justification for the utilitarian legislator to rationally recommend a particular political regime, such as liberalism. Actual data about human preference-structures and utilities is required to (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. John Brunero (2010). Consequentialism and the Wrong Kind of Reasons: A Reply to Lang. Utilitas 22 (3):351-359.
    In his article , Gerald Lang formulates the buck-passing account of value so as to resolve the Wrong Kind of Reason Problem. I argue against his formulation of buck-passing. Specifically, I argue that his formulation of buck-passing is not compatible with consequentialism (whether direct or indirect), and so it should be rejected.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Joanna M. Burch-Brown (2014). Clues for Consequentialists. Utilitas 26 (1):105-119.
    In an influential paper, James Lenman argues that consequentialism can provide no basis for ethical guidance, because we are irredeemably ignorant of most of the consequences of our actions. If our ignorance of distant consequences is great, he says, we can have little reason to recommend one action over another on consequentialist grounds. In this article, I show that for reasons to do with statistical theory, the cluelessness objection is too pessimistic. We have good reason to believe that certain patterns (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Joanna M. Burch-Brown (2014). Martin Peterson, The Dimensions of Consequentialism: Ethics, Equality and Risk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), Pp. Vii + 217. [REVIEW] Utilitas 26 (2):223-226.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. W. G. De Burgh (1939). The Right and the Good. Mind 48 (192):491 - 497.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Zeljka Buturovic (2012). Deep Down: Consequentialist Assumptions Underlying Policy Differences. Critical Review 24 (2):269-289.
    A conditional survey establishes a preliminary case for believing that policy differences are to some extent driven by fundamental beliefs about empirical aspects of society and economics. The survey shows willingness in about a third of all respondents to shift their expressed policy preferences when asked a hypothetical question positing negative consequences of their initial preferences. This suggests that assumptions about the consequences of public policies may play as important a role in policy preferences, or a more important role, than (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Krister Bykvist (2003). Normative Supervenience and Consequentialism. Utilitas 15 (01):27-.
    Act-consequentialism is usually taken to be the view that we ought to perform the act that will have the best consequences. But this definition ignores the possibility of various non-maximizing forms of act-consequentialism, e.g. satisficing theories that tell us to perform the act whose consequences will be good enough. What seems crucial to act-consequentialism is not that we ought to maximize value but that the normative status of alternative actions depends solely on the values of their outcomes. The purpose of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Michael Byron (2002). Consequentialist Friendship and Quasi-Instrumental Goods. Utilitas 14 (02):249-.
    Recent literature defends consequentialism against the charge that consequentialists cannot be friends. This paper argues in rebuttal that consequentialists value friends for the wrong reasons. Even if they are motivated by love and affection, consequentialists must act as if they valued their friends as merely instrumental goods, a mode of valuing I call . I conclude by suggesting the root cause of the problem of intrinsic value for consequentialism.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Todd Calder (2007). Against Consequentialist Theories of Virtue and Vice. Utilitas 19 (2):201-219.
    Consequentialist theories of virtue and vice, such as the theories of Jeremy Bentham and Julia Driver, characterize virtue and vice in terms of the consequential, or instrumental, properties of these character traits. There are two problems with theories of this sort. First they imply that, under the right circumstances, paradigmatic virtues, such as benevolence, are vices and paradigmatic vices, such as maliciousness, are virtues. This is conceptually problematic. Second, they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the virtues and vices, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Mary Whiton Calkins (1919). The Good Man and the Good. Philosophical Review 28 (3):319-322.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Arthur L. Caplan (2010). Good, Better, or Best? In Julian Savulescu & Nick Bostrom (eds.), Human Enhancement. Oup Oxford.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Arthur L. Caplan (2009). Good, Better or Best. In Julian Savulescu & Nick Bostrom (eds.), Human Enhancement. Oup Oxford. 199--209.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Allan Carlson (2008). The “Good War”. The Chesterton Review 34 (1/2):147-161.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Erik Carlson (1997). Consequentialism, Distribution and Desert. Utilitas 9 (03):307-.
    This paper criticizes the consequentialist theory recently put forward by Fred Feldman. I argue that this theory violates two crucial requirements. Another theory, proposed by Peter Vallentyne, is similarly flawed. Feldman's basic ideas could, however, be developed into a more plausible theory. I suggest one possible way of doing this.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Miguel Catalán-González (2004). Utilitarianism and Moral Valuation of Lying. Philosophical Inquiry 26 (3):33-39.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Richard Yetter Chappell (2014). The Limits of Kindness. By Caspar Hare. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 201403.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Tim Chappell (1992). Consequentialism and Abortion. Philosophy Now 4:17-18.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Timothy Chappell (2002). Being Good. International Philosophical Quarterly 42 (2):262-265.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Dale L. Clark (2009). Aesop's Fox: Consequentialist Virtue Meets Egocentric Bias. Philosophical Psychology 22 (6):727 – 737.
    In her book Uneasy Virtue, Julia Driver presents an account of motive or trait utilitarianism, one that has been taken as “the most detailed and thoroughly defended recent formulation” of consequential virtue ethics. On Driver's account character traits are morally virtuous if and only if they generally lead to good consequences for society. Various commentators have taken Driver to task over this account of virtue, which she terms “pure evaluational externalism.” They object that, on Driver's account of virtue, it could (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Dennis R. Cooley (2000). Readjusting Utility for Justice. Journal of Philosophical Research 25:363-380.
    Despite the best efforts of utilitarians, justice remains a serious problem for consequentialism. Many counterexamples have been described which show that an agent may be obligated to do a gross injustice, according to hedonic utilitarianism, just because it maximizes utility. Fred Feldman attempts to avoid this result by adjusting utility for justice.In this paper, I examine Feldman’s axiology and his normative theory of world utilitarianism, and show that, ultimately, he is not successful in his endeavor. Though Feldman’s theories may not (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Garrett Cullity, Brad Hooker & Tim Mulgan (2011). Intuitions and the Demands of Consequentialism. Utilitas 23 (1).
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Dolan Cummings & Institute of Ideas (2002). Art What is It Good For?
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Trevor Curnow (2004). Good for Us. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis 24 (1):69-70.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. M. C. D'Arcy (1931). The Good and the Right. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 32:171 - 206.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. J. Dancy (ed.) (1997). Reading Parfit. Blackwell.
  48. Jonathan Dancy (2000). Mill's Puzzling Footnote. Utilitas 12 (02):219-.
    This paper discusses various possible interpretations of a complex footnote in Mill's Utilitarianism.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Jonathan Dancy (1998). Wiggins and Ross. Utilitas 10 (3):281-285.
    Ross's attempt to undermine the consequentialist understanding of the relation between duties and outcomes might give him greater defence against the danger that outcome-related duties will come to constitute a norm, to the disadvantage of all others.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Stephen Darwall (1998). Under Moore's Spell. Utilitas 10 (03):286-.
    As David Wiggins points out, although Ross is best known for opposing Moore's consequentialism, Ross comes very close to capitulation to Moore when he accepts, as required by beneficence, a prima facie duty to maximize the good. I argue that what lies behind this is Ross's acceptance of Moore's doctrine of agent-neutral intrinsic value, a notion that is not required by, but is indeed is in tension with, beneficence as doing good to or for others.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 290