Journal of Value Inquiry 46 (4):467-479 (2012)

Authors
Simon Wigley
Bilkent University
Abstract
A standard criticism of act-utilitarianism is that it is only indirectly concerned with the distribution of welfare between individuals and, therefore, does not take adequate account of the separateness between individuals. In response a number of philosophers have argued that act-utilitarianism is only vulnerable to that objection because it adheres to a theory of the good which ignores non-welfarist sources of intrinsic value such as justice. Fred Feldman, for example, argues that intrinsic value is independently generated by the receipt of welfare and the degree to which receipt accords with the demands of justice, and that an action is right insofar as it maximizes the sum of both those sources of value. In response it is argued that justicized consequentialism only blocks the objection at the expense of presupposing deontological constraints. In addition, it is argued that the value of justice cannot be explained non-deontically and, therefore, that the proposed theory is not consequentialist all the way down
Keywords act-utilitarianism  objection from justice  intrinsic value  deontological constraints
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10790-013-9361-5
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,130
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Equality or Priority?Derek Parfit - 2002 - In Matthew Clayton & Andrew Williams (eds.), The Ideal of Equality. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 81-125.
Consequences of Consequentialism.David Sosa - 1993 - Mind 102 (405):101-122.
How to Adjust Utility for Desert.Bradford Skow - 2012 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (2):235-257.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Rule-Consequentialism's Assumptions.Kevin P. Tobia - 2018 - Utilitas 30 (4):458-471.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Distributive Justice and Welfarism in Utilitarianism.Jörg Schroth - 2008 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 51 (2):123-146.
Desert as Fit: An Axiomatic Analysis.Gustaf Arrhenius - 2006 - In Kris McDaniel, Jason R. Raibley, Richard Feldman & Michael E. Zimmerman (eds.), The Good, the Right, Life And Death: Essays in Honor of Fred Feldman. Aldershot: Ashgate Pub Co. pp. 3-17.
The Impotence of the Demandingness Objection.David Sobel - 2007 - Philosophers' Imprint 7:1-17.
The Origins of the Objection.Steven Sverdlik - 2012 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 29 (1):79-101.
Readjusting Utility for Justice.Dennis R. Cooley - 2000 - Journal of Philosophical Research 25:363-380.
Can an Act-Consequentialist Theory Be Agent Relative?Douglas W. Portmore - 2001 - American Philosophical Quarterly 38 (4):363-77.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-03-13

Total views
100 ( #116,959 of 2,506,489 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,791 of 2,506,489 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes