Consequentialism and Respect

Two Strategies for Justifying Act Utilitarianism

Bibliographic Data

ID12228405
AuthorsBen Eggleston (0000-0001-8998-0188, University of Kansas, corresponding author)
Year2019
Volume32
Issue1
Pages1-18
Publication date2019-04-23
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueUtilitas (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0953-8208 • E-ISSN: 1741-6183
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0953820819000086
OpenAlexW2940870621
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited19

Most arguments in support of act utilitarianism are elaborations of one of two basic strategies. One is the consequentialist strategy. This strategy relies on the consequentialist premise that an act is right if and only if it produces the best possible consequences and the welfarist premise that the value of a state of affairs is entirely determined by its overall amount of well-being. The other strategy is based on the idea of treating individuals respectfully and resolving conflicts among individuals in whatever way best conforms to that idea. Although both of these strategies can be used to argue for the principle of act utilitarianism, they are significantly different from each other, and these differences cause them to have different strengths and weaknesses. It emerges that which argumentative strategy is chosen by a proponent of act utilitarianism has a large impact on which virtues her view has and which objections it is vulnerable to

Argumentative · Consequentialism · Economics · Epistemology · Law and economics · Political science · Positive economics · Premise · Strengths and weaknesses · Utilitarianism · Value (mathematics · Computer Science · Law · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics · War, Ethics, and Justification

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access