A defence of the received interpretation of J. S. Mill
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (2):131-137 (1972)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDale E. Miller (2010). Brown on Mill's Moral Theory: A Critical Response. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 9 (1):47-66.
Daniel Jacobson (2003). J.S. Mill and the Diversity of Utilitarianism. Philosophers' Imprint 3 (2):1-18.
Alan E. Fuchs (2001). Autonomy, Slavery, and Mill's Critique of Paternalism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 4 (3):231-251.
Christoph Schmidt-Petri (2006). On an Interpretation of Mill's Qualitative Utilitarianism. Prolegomena 5 (2):165-177.
S. Evan Kreider (2011). Mill on Happiness. Philosophical Papers 39 (1):53-68.
Peter Forrest (1999). In Defence of the Phase Space Picture. Synthese 119 (3):299-311.
Jim Jose (2000). Contesting Patrilineal Descent in Political Theory: James Mill and Nineteenth-Century Feminism. Hypatia 15 (1):151-174.
Ville Kilkku (2004). The Significance of Tendencies and Intentions in the Moral Philosophy of J. S. Mill. Utilitas 16 (1):80-95.
John V. Strong (1978). John Stuart Mill, John Herschel, and the 'Probability of Causes'. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1978:31 - 41.
Brian Cupples (1972). A Defence of the Received Interpretation of J. S. Mill. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (2):131 – 137.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2010-08-10Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
