See also:
  1. James Wood Bailey (2001). William H. Shaw, Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism, Oxford, Blackwell, 1999, Pp. 311. Utilitas 13 (01):134-.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. James Wood Bailey (1998). mIs It Rationale to Maximize? M. Utilitas 10 (2):195-.
    Most versions of utilitarianism depend on the plausibility and coherence of some conceptionof maximizing well-being, but these conceptions have been attacked on various grounds. This paper considers two such contentions. First, it addresses the argument that because goods are plural and incommensurable, maximization is incoherent. It is shown that any conception of incommensurability strong enough to show the incoherence of maximization leads to an intolerable paradox. Several misunderstandings of what maximization requires are also addressed. Second, this paper responds to the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. James Wood Bailey (1997). Utilitarianism, Institutions, and Justice. Oxford University Press.
    This book is a rebuttal of the common charge that the moral doctrine of utilitarianism permits horrible acts, justifies unfair distribution of wealth and other social goods, and demands too much of moral agents. Bailey defends utilitarianism by applying central insights of game theory regarding feasible equilibria and evolutionary stability of norms to elaborate an account of institutions that real-world utilitarians would want to foster. With such an account he shows that utilitarianism, while still a useful doctrine for criticizing existing (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation