Erkenntnis 25 (1):47 - 60 (1986)
|Abstract||This paper examines some work in welfare economics based upon generalized social welfare function (GSWFs). Impartial welfarism consists in a set of apparently quite weak moral axioms concerning GSWFs. Using that framework, welfare economists have derived both utilitarian and Rawlsian doctrines. These results would seem to be of great importance to moral philosophy. I argue, however, that applying them presupposes a view of persons as mere place holders for preferences, thereby limiting the theorems' appeal for moral philosophers. I propose a more satisfactory view of impartial welfarism by replacing the term person by the more general welfare recipient, but this still fails to make the doctrine available to all moral philosophers.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Alan E. Fuchs (1991). Posthumous Satisfactions and the Individual Welfare. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:345-351.
Eduardo Rivera-lópez (2007). Are Mental State Welfarism and Our Concern for Non-Experiential Goals Incompatible? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (1):74–91.
John Skorupski (2006). Welfare and Self-Governance. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (3):289 - 309.
David Mcnaughton & Piers Rawling (2001). Achievement, Welfare and Consequentialism. Analysis 61 (2):156–162.
Thomas S. Petersen (2009). What is It for a Life to Go Well (or Badly)?: Some Critical Comment of Waynes Sumner's Theory of Welfare. Journal of Happiness Studies 10:449-458.
Bradford Skow (2012). How to Adjust Utility for Desert. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (2):235-257.
Simon Keller (2009). Welfarism. Philosophy Compass 4 (1):82-95.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #154,629 of 722,708 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,708 )
How can I increase my downloads?