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:
65 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 65
  1. Ernest Albee (1896). The Relation of Shaftesbury and Hutcheson to Utilitarianism. Philosophical Review 5 (1):24-35.
  2. Susan Anderson & Michael Anderson (eds.) (2011). Machine Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
    The essays in this volume represent the first steps by philosophers and artificial intelligence researchers toward explaining why it is necessary to add an ...
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   12 citations  
  3. Victor Argonov (2014). The Pleasure Principle as a Tool for Scientific Forecasting of Human Self-Evolution. Journal of Evolution and Technology 24 (2):63-78.
    The pleasure principle (PP) may be a verifiable fundamental law of the living matter in the universe, and this law might then be used for forecasting human self-evolution. I do not pretend to “prove” PP, but argue that it must be regarded as a scientific hypothesis. Accordingly, I formulate verifiable and falsifiable postulates of PP. Their confirmation would allow the construction of a new scientific discipline, hedodynamics, that would be able to forecast the future development of human civilization and even (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   21 citations  
  5. Michael D. Bayles (1968). Contemporary Utilitarianism. Garden City, N.Y.,Anchor Books.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  6. Lars Bergström (1968). Alternatives and utilitarianism. Theoria 34 (2):162.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. R. B. Brandt (1989). Fairness To Happiness. Social Theory and Practice 15 (1):33-58.
  8. John Deigh (2004). Sidgwick's Conception of Ethics. Utilitas 16 (2):168-183.
    J. B. Schneewind's Sidgwick's Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy surpassed all previous treatments of Sidgwick's The Methods of Ethics by showing how Sidgwick's work follows a coherent plan of argument for a conception of ethics as grounded in practical reason. Schneewind offered his interpretation as the product of a historical rather than a critical study. This article undertakes a critical study of Sidgwick's work based on Schneewind's interpretation. Its thesis is that the conception of ethics for which Sidgwick argued is (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Caleb Dewey, Naturalism Favours Utilitarianism.
    Ever since the founding of utilitarianism, philosophers have noted that naturalists (among others) have a particular affinity towards utilitarianism. In 1999, Jon Mendle explored whether naturalism actually implied utilitarianism and found that it did not. However, implication is not the only way for naturalism to favour utilitarianism. In this essay, I define utilitarianism in terms of practical reason, which I call ``the utilitarian backstory''. This backstory demonstrates that naturalism creates conditions in which rationality subsumes utilitarianism, making non-utilitarian ethics irrational. In (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Alan Donagan (1980). A New Sidgwick:Sidgwick's Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy. J. B. Schneewind. Ethics 90 (2):282-.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Nicholas Drake (2015). A Humean Constructivist Reading of J. S. Mill's Utilitarian Theory. Utilitas:1-26.
    There is a common view that the utilitarian theory of John Stuart Mill is morally realist and involves a strong kind of practical obligation. This article argues for two negative theses and a positive thesis. The negative theses are that Mill is not a moral realist and that he does not believe in certain kinds of obligations, those involving external reasons and those I call robust obligations, obligations with a particular, strong kind of practical authority. The positive thesis is (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Annette Dufner (2012). Surprising Theses in Classical Utilitarianism. Henry Sidgwick's Neglected Completion of Classical British Moral Philosophy. Archiv für Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie / Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy / Archives de Philosophie du Droit Et de Philosophie Sociale / Archivo de Filosofía Jurídica y Social 98 (4):510-534.
    This paper argues that Henry Sidgwick’s account of the relationship between the right and the good, as well as his theory of the good are still undervalued in many respects. An applied section illustrates the practical significance of this finding. In cases in which shooting down a passenger plane can save a greater number of people on the ground, and no other relevant considerations apply, the passengers should desire their own destruction—not only to promote the general good, but also in (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Ben Eggleston & Dale Miller (eds.) (2014). The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism. Cambridge University Press.
    This book offers a comprehensive overview of one of the most important and frequently discussed accounts of morality.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Luca Ferrero (1993). La Teoria dell'Identita Personale di Parfit e l'Utilitarismo. Annali Del Dipartimento di Filosofia 9:161-196.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Allan Gibbard (2008). Reconciling Our Aims: In Search of Bases for Ethics. Oxford University Press.
    In these three Tanner lectures, distinguished ethical theorist Allan Gibbard explores the nature of normative thought and the bases of ethics. In the first lecture he explores the role of intuitions in moral thinking and offers a way of thinking about the intuitive method of moral inquiry that both places this activity within the natural world and makes sense of it as an indispensable part of our lives as planners. In the second and third lectures he takes up the kind (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  16. Holly S. Goldman (1974). David Lyons on Utilitarian Generalization. Philosophical Studies 26 (2):77 - 95.
  17. Christopher Grau (2011). There is No 'I' in 'Robot': Robots and Utilitarianism (Expanded & Revised). In Susan Anderson & Michael Anderson (eds.), Machine Ethics. Cambridge University Press 451.
    Utilizing the film I, Robot as a springboard, I here consider the feasibility of robot utilitarians, the moral responsibilities that come with the creation of ethical robots, and the possibility of distinct ethics for robot-robot interaction as opposed to robot-human interaction. (This is a revised and expanded version of an essay that originally appeared in IEEE: Intelligent Systems.).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  18. Steven D. Hales (ed.) (2007). Beer & Philosophy: The Unexamined Beer Isn't Worth Drinking. Blackwell Pub..
    A beer-lovers' book which playfully examines a myriad of philosophical concerns related to beer consumption. Effectively demonstrates how real philosophical issues exist just below the surface of our everyday activities Divided into four sections: The Art of the Beer; The Ethics of Beer: Pleasures, Freedom, and Character; The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Beer; and Beer in the History of Philosophy Uses the context of beer to expose George Berkeley’s views on fermented beverages as a medical cure; to inspect Immanuel Kant’s (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Steven D. Hales (2007). Mill V. Miller, or Higher and Lower Pleasures. In Steven Hales (ed.), Beer & Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell
    I offer an interpretation of John Stuart Mill's theory of higher and lower pleasures in his Utilitarianism. I argue that the quality of pleasure is best understood as the density of pleasure per unit of delivery. Mill is illustrated with numerous beer examples.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Joel David Hamkins & Barbara Montero (2000). With Infinite Utility, More Needn't Be Better. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (2):231 – 240.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  21. R. M. Hare (1989). Brandt on Fairness to Happiness. Social Theory and Practice 15 (1):59-65.
  22. Iwao Hirose & Andrew Reisner (eds.) (2015). Weighing and Reasoning: Themes From the Work of John Broome. Oxford University Press.
    This book is a collection of 15 new papers celebrating the work and career of John Broome. Publication is expected in spring 2015.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Brad Hooker (2014). "Utilitarianism and Fairness". In Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism. 251-271.
  24. Zachary Hoskins (2013). ''Obligation''. In James E. Crimmins (ed.), The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Utilitarianism. Bloomsbury Academic
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. E. E. Constance Jones (1894). The Rationality of Hedonism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 3 (1):29 - 45.
  26. Yusuke Kaneko (2013). Three Utilitarians: Hume, Bentham, and Mill. IAFOR Journal of Ethics, Religion and Philosophy 1 (1):65-78.
    The aim of this paper is to clarify the relationship of three thinkers, Hume, Bentham, and Mill in the context of utilitarianism. Through discussion, we shall figure out how and why utilitarianism is trustworthy.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Carl Knight (2013). What is Grandfathering? Environmental Politics 22 (3):410-427.
    Emissions grandfathering maintains that prior emissions increase future emission entitlements. The view forms a large part of actual emission control frameworks, but is routinely dismissed by political theorists and applied philosophers as evidently unjust. A sympathetic theoretical reconsideration of grandfathering suggests that the most plausible version is moderate, allowing that other considerations should influence emission entitlements, and be justified on instrumental grounds. The most promising instrumental justification defends moderate grandfathering on the basis that one extra unit of emission entitlements from (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Christian List (2003). Are Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility Indeterminate? Erkenntnis 58 (2):229 - 260.
    On the orthodox view in economics, interpersonal comparisons of utilityare not empirically meaningful, and ``hence'' impossible. To reassess this view, this paper draws onthe parallels between the problem of interpersonal comparisons of utility and the problem of translation of linguisticmeaning, as explored by Quine. I discuss several cases of what the empirical evidence for interpersonal comparisonsof utility might be and show that, even on the strongest of these, interpersonal comparisons are empiricallyunderdetermined and, if we also deny any appropriate truth of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  29. Douglas G. Long (1990). 'Utility' and the 'Utility Principle': Hume, Smith, Bentham, Mill. Utilitas 2 (1):12.
    David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are often viewed as contributors to or participants in a common tradition of thought roughly characterized as ‘the liberal tradition’ or the tradition of ‘bourgeois ideology’. This view, however useful it may be for polemical or proselytizing purposes, is in some important respects historiographically unsound. This is not to deny the importance of asking what twentieth-century liberals or conservatives might find in the works of, say, David Hume to support their (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  30. J. Mander & A. P. F. Sell (eds.) (2002). The Dictionary of Nineteenth-Century British Philosophers. Thoemmes Press.
  31. David McCarthy (2013). Risk-Free Approaches to the Priority View. Erkenntnis 78 (2):421-449.
    Parfit advertised the priority view as a new and fundamental theory in the ethics of distribution. He never discusses risk, and many writers follow suit when discussing the priority view. This article formalizes two popular arguments for a commonly accepted risk-free definition of the priority view. One is based on a direct attempt to define the priority view, the other is based on a contrast with utilitarianism and egalitarianism. But neither argument succeeds, and more generally, it is not possible to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  32. David McCarthy (2007). Measuring Life's Goodness. Philosophical Books 48 (4):303-319.
    Philosophers often assume that we can somehow quantitatively measure how good things are for people. But what does such talk mean? And what are the measures? In *Weighing Goods* John Broome offers one treatment of these questions. In his later *Weighing Lives* he offers a different treatment. This article discusses both positions but advocates a third. But while the three positions disagree about matters of meaning, they agree about the form of the measures. Roughly speaking, they are such that the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  33. Michael Moehler (2015). The Rawls–Harsanyi Dispute: A Moral Point of View. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 96 (3).
    Central to the Rawls–Harsanyi dispute is the question of whether the core modeling device of Rawls' theory of justice, the original position, justifies Rawls' principles of justice, as Rawls suggests, or whether it justifies the average utility principle, as Harsanyi suggests. Many commentators agree with Harsanyi and consider this dispute to be primarily about the correct application of normative decision theory to Rawls' original position. I argue that, if adequately conceived, the Rawls–Harsanyi dispute is not primarily a dispute about the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Philippe Mongin (2015). Ranking Multidimensional Alternatives and Uncertain Prospects. Journal of Economic Theory 157.
    We introduce a ranking of multidimensional alternatives, including uncertain prospects as a particular case, when these objects can be given a matrix form. This ranking is separable in terms of rows and columns, and continuous and monotonic in the basic quantities. Owing to the theory of additive separability developed here, we derive very precise numerical representations over a large class of domains (i.e., typically notof the Cartesian product form). We apply these representationsto (1)streams of commodity baskets through time, (2)uncertain social (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Corrado Morricone (2014). Mill’s Progressive Principles Brink David O. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013; XIX + 307 Pp.; £35.00. [REVIEW] Dialogue 53 (2):349-350.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Olaf L. Mueller (2003). Can They Say What They Want? A Transcendental Argument Against Utilitarianism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 41 (2):241-259.
    Let us imagine an ideal ethical agent, i.e., an agent who (i) holds a certain ethical theory, (ii) has all factual knowledge needed for determining which action among those open to her is right and which is wrong, according to her theory, and who (iii) is ideally motivated to really do whatever her ethical theory demands her to do. If we grant that the notions of omniscience and ideal motivation both make sense, we may ask: Could there possibly be an (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Tim Mulgan (2012). The Future of Utilitarianism. In Rationis Defensor.
    Climate change has obvious practical implications. It will kill millions of people, wipe out thousands of species, and so on. My question in this paper is much narrower. How might climate change impact on moral theory – and especially on the debate between utilitarians and their non-utilitarian rivals? I argue that climate change creates serious theoretical difficulties for non-utilitarian moral theories – especially those that based morality or justice on any contract or bargain for reciprocal advantage. Climate change thus tips (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Tim Mulgan (2012). The Future of Utilitarianism. In James Maclaurin (ed.), Rationis Defensor.
    Climate change has obvious practical implications. It will kill millions of people, wipe out thousands of species, and so on. My question in this paper is much narrower. How might climate change impact on moral theory – and especially on the debate between utilitarians and their non-utilitarian rivals? I argue that climate change creates serious theoretical difficulties for non-utilitarian moral theories – especially those that based morality or justice on any contract or bargain for reciprocal advantage. Climate change thus tips (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39. Olaf L. Müller (2005). Benign Blackmail. Cassandra's Plan or What Is Terrorism? In Georg Meggle (ed.), Ethics of Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism. Ontos 39-50.
    In its reaction on the terroristic attacks of September 9th, 2001, the US-government threatened Afghanistan's Taleban with war in order to force them to extradite terrorist leader Bin Laden; the Taleban said that they would not surrender to this kind of blackmail – and so, they were removed from Kabul by means of military force. The rivalling versions of this story depend crucially on notions such as "terrorism" and "blackmail". Obviously you'll gain public support for your preferrend version of the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. Olaf L. Müller (2004). Reconstructing Pacifism. On Different Ways of Looking at Reality. In Georg Meggle (ed.), Ethics of humanitarian interventions. Ontos
    Pacifists and their opponents disagree not only about moral questions, but most often about factual questions as well. For example, they came to divergent descriptions of the crisis in Kosovo. According to my reconstruction of pacifism, this is not a surprise because the pacifist, legitimately, looks at the facts in the light of her system of value. Her opponent, in turn, looks at the facts in the light of alternative systems of value, and the quarrel between the two parties about (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Jan Narveson (2004). Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics. International Studies in Philosophy 36 (1):316-318.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. N. M. L. Nathan (1994). The Multiplication of Utility. Utilitas 6 (2):217.
    Some people have supposed that utility is good in itself, non-in-strumentally good, as distinct from good because conducive to other good things. And in modern versions of this view, utility often means want-satisfaction, as distinct from pleasure or happiness. For your want that p to be satisfied, is it necessary that you know or believe that p, or sufficient merely that p is true? However that question is answered, there are problems with the view that want-satisfaction is a non-instrumental good. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. Francesco Orsi (2012). Sidgwick and the Morality of Purity. Revue d'Etudes Benthamiennes 10 (10).
    The aim of this work is to bring analytically to light Sidgwick’s complex views on sexual morality. Sidgwick saw nothing intrinsically, self-evidently, and even derivatively wrong in getting sexual pleasure for its own sake. However, the overall consequences of attempting to modify common sense in matters of sexual ethics seemed to him to be worse, at his time, than retaining the moral category of purity. Sidgwick’s view is then contrasted with John Stuart Mill’s, whom he directly mentions in this connection. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer & Ezekiel J. Emanuel (2009). Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions. The Lancet 373 (9661):423--431.
    Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  45. Steve Petersen (2013). Utilitarian Epistemology. Synthese 190 (6):1173-1184.
    Standard epistemology takes it for granted that there is a special kind of value: epistemic value. This claim does not seem to sit well with act utilitarianism, however, since it holds that only welfare is of real value. I first develop a particularly utilitarian sense of “epistemic value”, according to which it is closely analogous to the nature of financial value. I then demonstrate the promise this approach has for two current puzzles in the intersection of epistemology and value theory: (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  46. Steve Petersen (2013). Utilitarian Epistemology. Synthese 190 (6):1173-1184.
    Standard epistemology takes it for granted that there is a special kind of value: epistemic value. This claim does not seem to sit well with act utilitarianism, however, since it holds that only welfare is of real value. I first develop a particularly utilitarian sense of “epistemic value”, according to which it is closely analogous to the nature of financial value. I then demonstrate the promise this approach has for two current puzzles in the intersection of epistemology and value theory: (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47. Madison Powers (1994). Repugnant Desires and the Two-Tier Conception of Utility. Utilitas 6 (2):171.
    An important objection to many utilitarian theories is that their conceptions of utility may count as morally relevant contributions to individual well-being items which are morally or rationally suspect. For example, if the conception of utility is pleasure, or alternatively, the fulfilment of actual desire or satisfaction of preferences, then greater individual utility may be produced by whatever increases pleasure, fulfils desire, or satisfies someone's preferences. This is true no matter how disgusting or vile we may think such pleasures are, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. Wlodek Rabinowicz & Bertil Strömberg (1996). What If I Were in His Shoes? On Hare's Argument for Preference Utilitarianism. Theoria 62 (1-2):95-123.
    This paper discusses the argument for preference utilitarianism proposed by Richard Hare in Moral Thinking(Hare, 1981). G. F. Schueler (1984) and Ingmar Persson (1989) identified a serious gap in Hare’s reasoning, which might be called the No-Conflict Problem. The paper first tries to fill the gap. Then, however, starting with an idea of Zeno Vendler, the question is raised whether the gap is there to begin with. Unfortunately, this Vendlerian move does not save Hare from criticism. Paradoxically, it instead endangers (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  49. Andrew Reisner (2015). John Broome. In Robert Audi (ed.), Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press
  50. Jörg Schroth (2008). Distributive Justice and Welfarism in Utilitarianism. Inquiry 51 (2):123-146.
    In this paper I argue for the following conclusions: 1. The widely shared beliefs that in utilitarianism and consequentialism (a) the good has priority over the right and (b) the right is derived from the good, are both false. 2. The most plausible components of utilitarianism that are used to present it as an intuitively compelling moral theory - welfarism, consequentialism and maximization - do not in fact support utilitarianism because they do not establish that the best state of affairs (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 65