David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Utilitas 18 (1):1-19 (2006)
When Amartya Sen defends his capability theory of well-being he contrasts it with the utility theory advocated by the classical utilitarians, including John Stuart Mill. Yet a closer examination of the two theories reveals that they are much more similar than they appear. Each theory can be interpreted in either a subjective or an objective way. When both are interpreted subjectively the differences between them are slight, and likewise for the objective interpretations. Finally, whatever differences may remain are less important than they might seem, since the two theories are developed by Sen and Mill for different purposes and are in that sense not genuine rivals.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
L. W. Sumner (2006). Utility and Capability. Utilitas 18 (1):1-19.
Mozaffar Qizilbash (2006). Capability, Happiness and Adaptation in Sen and J. S. Mill. Utilitas 18 (1):20-32.
Melanie Walker (2010). Critical Capability Pedagogies and University Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 42 (8):898-917.
Mozaffar Qizilbash (2007). Social Choice and Individual Capabilities. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (2):169-192.
Douglas A. Hicks (2002). Gender, Discrimination, and Capability: Insights From Amartya Sen. Journal of Religious Ethics 30 (1):137 - 154.
Serena Olsaretti (2005). Endorsement and Freedom in Amartya Sen's Capability Approach. Economics and Philosophy 21 (1):89-108.
Thomas Pogge (2002). Can the Capability Approach Be Justified? Philosophical Topics 30 (2):167-228.
Rolans Pierik & Robeyns Ingrid (2007). Resources Versus Capabilities: Social Endowments in Egalitarian Theory. Political Studies 55 (1):133.
Jude Browne & Marc Stears (2005). Capabilities, Resources, and Systematic Injustice: A Case of Gender Inequality. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 4 (3):355-373.
Roland Pierik (2006). Reparations for Luck Egalitarians. Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (3):423–440.
Hans Lottenbach (1994). Expected Utility and Constrained Maximization: Problems of Compatibility. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 41 (1):37 - 48.
Richard J. Arneson, Distributive Justice and Basic Capability Equality: 'Good Enough' is Not Good Enough.
Jay Drydyk (2012). A Capability Approach to Justice as a Virtue. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (1):23-38.
José L. Tasset (2007). Hume and Mill on 'Utility of Religion': A Borgean Garden of Forking Paths? Τέλος. Revista Iberoamericana de Estudios Utilitaristas 14 (2):117-129.
Added to index2010-08-30
Total downloads35 ( #52,451 of 1,099,914 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #33,415 of 1,099,914 )
How can I increase my downloads?