Philosophical Review 81 (1):94-104 (1972)
In his "consequences of utilitarianism", D. H. Hodgson argues that to act on the principle of act-Utilitarianism would have disastrous consequences, And that this principle must therefore be rejected. I attempt to refute his argument. The debate centers on whether there can be an act-Utilitarian justification for telling the truth and keeping promises
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Can They Say What They Want? A Transcendental Argument Against Utilitarianism.Olaf L. Mueller - 2003 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 41 (2):241-259.
Similar books and articles
Utilitarianism, Contractualism and Demandingness.Alison Hills - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (239):225-242.
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 Consistency of Act-Utilitarianism and Motive-Utilitarianism - a Reply to Adams,Robert.F. Feldman - unknown
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads271 ( #11,378 of 2,153,472 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #45,264 of 2,153,472 )
How can I increase my downloads?