David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Utilitas 11 (01):16- (1999)
This paper discusses what the so-called Priority View implies regarding possible people. It is argued that this view is plausible when applied to fixed populations, but that, when applied to the issue of possible people, it faces certain difficulties. If it is claimed that possible people fall within the scope of the Priority View, we are led to the repugnant conclusion (and other counter-intuitive conclusions) at a faster pace than we are by, e.g., utilitarianism. And if it is claimed that possible people do not fall within the scope of the Priority View, we shall have to combine this view with a different view in order to avoid certain counter-intuitive judgements. Such a combined view, however, leads to intransitivities. At the end of the paper, I discuss what these conclusions imply regarding both the Priority View and our moral obligations to possible people
|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
Krister Bykvist (2007). The Benefits of Coming Into Existence. Philosophical Studies 135 (3):335 - 362.
Campbell Brown (2007). Prioritarianism for Variable Populations. Philosophical Studies 134 (3):325 - 361.
Matthew Rendall (2013). Priority and Desert. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):939-951.
Similar books and articles
Roger Crisp (2011). In Defence of the Priority View: A Response to Otsuka and Voorhoeve. Utilitas 23 (1):105-108.
Wesley Cooper (2008). Decision-Value Utilitarianism. Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):39-50.
Wlodek Rabinowicz (2002). Prioritarianism for Prospects. Utilitas 14 (01):2-21.
David McCarthy (2008). Utilitarianism and Prioritarianism II. Economics and Philosophy 24 (1):1-33.
Marc Fleurbaey, Bertil Tungodden & Peter Vallentyne (2009). On the Possibility of Nonaggregative Priority for the Worst Off. Social Philosophy and Policy 26 (1):258-285.
Paul Weirich (2010). Utility and Framing. Synthese 176 (1):83 - 103.
D. W. Haslett (1990). What is Utility? Economics and Philosophy 6 (01):65-.
Kelly Trogdon (2009). Monism and Intrinsicality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):127 – 148.
James Q. Wilson (1994). Wealth and Happiness. Critical Review 8 (4):555-564.
Daniel Osherson (2005). A Note on Concave Utility Functions. Mind and Society 4 (1):85-96.
Adam J. Kolber (2003). A Matter of Priority: Transplanting Organs Preferentially to Registered Donors. Rutgers Law Review 55 (3):671-739.
Stephen A. Clark (2000). Revealed Preference and Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Johannes Schultz, Natalie Sebanz & Chris Frith (2004). Conscious Will in the Absence of Ghosts, Hypnotists, and Other People. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):674-675.
Martin M. Monti, Simon Grant & Daniel N. Osherson (2005). A Note on Concave Utility Functions. Mind and Society 4 (1):85-96.
Marc le Menestrel (2001). A Process Approach to the Utility for Gambling. Theory and Decision 50 (3):249-262.
Added to index2010-08-30
Total downloads14 ( #120,514 of 1,101,958 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #128,846 of 1,101,958 )
How can I increase my downloads?