This paper works within a particular framework for reasoning about actions—sometimes known as the framework of “stit semantics”—originally due to Belnap and Perloff, based ultimately on the theory of indeterminism set out in Prior’s indeterministic tense logic, and developed in full detail by Belnap, Perloff, and Xu . The issues I want to consider arise when certain normative, or decision theoretic, notions are introduced into this framework: here I will focus on the notion of a right action, and so on the formulation of act utilitarianism within this indeterministic setting. The problem is simply that there are two different, and conflicting, ways of defining this notion, both well-motivated, and both carrying intuitive weight.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Utilitarian Theories Reconsidered: Common Misconceptions, More Recent Developments, and Health Policy Implications.Afschin Gandjour & Karl Wilhelm Lauterbach - 2003 - Health Care Analysis 11 (3):229-244.
On the Purported Inconsistency of Act-Utilitarianism.Jules L. Coleman & Michael Perloff - 1975 - Philosophical Studies 28 (4):297 - 298.
Utilitarianism and Infinite Utility.Peter Vallentyne - 1993 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 71 (2):212 – 217.
“The Self-Other Asymmetry and Act Utilitarianism.”.Clay Splawn - 2001 - Utilitas 13 (3):323-333.
A Dilemma for Objective Act-Utilitarianism.Gerald Lang - 2004 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3 (2):221-239.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads53 ( #97,460 of 2,158,283 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #355,837 of 2,158,283 )
How can I increase my downloads?